Sweetened consumables comprising mogroside V and stevioside as sweetness enhancers and method of enhancing sweetness of consumables

ABSTRACT

Disclosed are sweetened consumables and methods of forming said sweetened consumables that comprise certain sweeteners and at least one sweetness enhancer in a concentration near its sweetness detection threshold. The sweeteners include sucrose, fructose, glucose, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, xylose, arabinose, rhamnose, erythritol, xylitol, mannitol, sorbitol, inositol, acesulfame potassium, aspartame, neotame, sucralose, saccharine, or combinations thereof. The sweetness enhancer is selected from naringin dihydrochalcone, mogroside V, swingle extract, rubusoside, rubus extract, rebaudioside, and stevioside.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. Ser. No.14/224,387, filed Mar. 25, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. Ser.No. 13/585,009, filed Aug. 14, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,679,567, issuedMar. 25, 2014, which is a continuation of now abandoned U.S. Ser. No.12/444,754, which is a 371 of PCT/CH07/000521, filed Oct. 22, 2007,having a 371 (c) date of Apr. 8, 2009, which claims the benefit of thefiling date under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application forPatent Ser. No. 60/853,813, filed Oct. 24, 2006, each of which areincorporated herein by reference.

TECHNICAL FIELD

Disclosed are sweetened consumables and methods of forming saidsweetened consumables that comprise certain sweeteners and at least onesweetness enhancer in a concentration near its sweetness detectionthreshold.

BACKGROUND

The sweetness enhancers used herein are known as natural and artificialsweeteners, however, they are used herein in a much lower concentrationnear their sweetness detection threshold.

These sweetness enhancers include Naringin dihydrochalcone (NarDHC),mogroside V or swingle extract comprising mogroside V, rubusoside orrubus extract comprising rubusoside, stevioside, and rebaudioside A.

Naringin dihydrochalcone has been used as a sweetener in concentrationswell above its sweetness detection level. It has also been used incombination with stevioside to reduce the off-note of stevioside(JP10276712).

Swingle (also known as Lou Han Gou (LHG)) contains variousnaturally-derived terpene glycosides, in particular various mogrosidesincluding mogroside IV, mogroside V, siamenoside I, and 11-oxo mogrosideV. A swingle/LHG juice based sweetening system that provides a reducedsweet or unpleasant aftertaste is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,433,965and WO 94/18855 by Fischer et al.

Rubus extract contains rubusoside and is used at a concentration wellabove its sweetness detection level as a sweetener and in combinationwith sugars. Sweetener compositions of various terpene glycosidesincluding mogrosides and rubusoside at 0.1% to 10% by weight (1,000ppm-100,000 ppm) are disclosed in US20020132037.

The sweet terpene glycoside stevioside and rebaudioside A have been usedin mixtures with sugars including sucrose at above sweetness detectionthreshold (Schiffman et al., Chem. Senses 2000, 131-140, Schiffman etal., Brain Res. Bull., 1995, 105-120, Schiffman et al., Food Qual. AndPref. 2006 (internet pre-publication)).

Applicant has found that certain known sweeteners, namely mogrosideV/swingle extract, rubusoside/rubus extract, and naringindihydrochalcone (NarDHC), are sweetness enhancers and can be used in alow concentration near their sweetness detection threshold incombination with certain sweeteners, including certain artificialsweeteners, including in particular the sugars sucrose, fructose,glucose, high fructose corn syrup (containing fructose and glucose),xylose, arabinose, and rhamnose, the sugar alcohols erythritol, xylitol,mannitol, sorbitol, and inositol, and the artificial sweeteners AceK,aspartame, neotame, sucralose, and saccharine, to enhance the sweetnessof said sweeteners.

None of these sweetness enhancers has been previously used near itssweetness detection threshold, alone or in combination, to enhance thesweetness of the above-mentioned sweeteners.

SUMMARY

In a first aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable comprising

-   a) at least 0.0001% of at least one sweetener,    -   wherein said sweetener includes sucrose, fructose, glucose, high        fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, xylose, arabinose, rhamnose,        erythritol, xylitol, mannitol, sorbitol, inositol, acesulfame        potassium, aspartame, neotame, sucralose, saccharine, or        combinations thereof,    -   wherein said at least one sweetener or sweetener combination is        present in a concentration above the sweetness detection        threshold in a concentration at least isosweet to 2% sucrose,        and-   b) at least one sweetness enhancer selected from the group    consisting of naringin dihydrochalcone, mogroside V, swingle    extract, rubusoside, rubus extract, stevioside, and rebaudioside A,    -   wherein each sweetness enhancer is present in a concentration        near its sweetness detection threshold, and wherein for naringin        dihydrochalcone this concentration is from 2 to 60 ppm; for        rubusoside, from 1.4 to 56 ppm; for rubus extract, from 2 to 80        ppm; for mogroside V, from 0.4 to 12.5 ppm; for swingle extract,        from 2 to 60 ppm; for stevioside, from 2 to 60 ppm; and for        rebaudioside A, from 1 to 30 ppm.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising naringin dihydrochalcone as a sweetness enhancer.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising rubusoside or rubus extract as a sweetness enhancer.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising mogroside V or swingle extract as a sweetnessenhancer.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising rebaudioside A as a sweetness enhancer.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising stevioside as a sweetness enhancer.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising two of the sweetness enhancers.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising a second sweetness enhancer selected from the groupconsisting of mogroside V, swingle extract, rubusoside, rubus extract,rebaudioside A, stevioside.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein comprising three of the sweetness enhancers.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein additionally comprising NDHC in a concentration from 1 to 5 ppm.

In another aspect, there is provided a sweetened consumable as describedherein which is a beverage.

In another aspect, there is provided a beverage as described hereinadditionally comprising neohesperidin dihydrochalcone in a concentrationfrom 1 to 2 ppm.

In another aspect, there is provided a method of sweetening consumablesutilizing at least 0.0001% of at least one sweetener, wherein saidsweetener includes sucrose, fructose, glucose, high fructose corn syrup,corn syrup, xylose, arabinose, rhamnose, erythritol, xylitol, mannitol,sorbitol, inositol, acesulfame potassium, aspartame, neotame, sucralose,saccharine, or combinations thereof,

and at least one sweetness enhancer selected from the group consistingof naringin dihydrochalcone, mogroside V, swingle extract, rubusoside,rubus extract, rebaudioside A and stevioside,

wherein each sweetness enhancer is present in a concentration near itssweetness detection threshold, and wherein for naringin dihydrochalconethis concentration is from 2 to 60 ppm; for rubusoside, from 1.4 to 56ppm; for rubus extract, from 2 to 80 ppm; for mogroside V, from 0.4 to12.5 ppm; for swingle extract, from 2 to 60 ppm; for stevioside, from 2to 60 ppm; and for rebaudioside A, from 1 to 30 ppm are admixed to aconsumable.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The sweetness detection threshold for the sweetness enhancers and theircombinations were determined by the applicant.

The sweetness detection threshold varies somewhat in differentindividuals. For example, some individuals are able to detect thesweetness of sucrose in a very low concentration of 0.4%, others need atleast 0.7% or even more. All examples were performed with sweetsensitive panelists able to detect at least 0.5% of sucrose or less. Theconcentration detectable by the average consumer will therefore behigher.

A sweetness enhancer's sweetness detection threshold is defined hereinas a concentration with an isointensity to sucrose of up to 1.25%sucrose or lower, for example, up to 1% sucrose, up to 0.8%, up to0.75%, up to 0.7% sucrose, or up to 0.5% sucrose, as detected by sweetsensitive panelists.

Examples of useful concentration ranges near the sweetness detectionthreshold of sweetness enhancers are indicated below:

-   -   2 to 60 ppm NarDHC.    -   1.4 to 42 ppm rubusoside or 2 to 60 ppm rubus extract.    -   0.4 to 12.5 ppm mogroside V or 2 ppm to 60 ppm swingle extract.    -   2 to 60 ppm stevioside.    -   1 to 30 ppm rebaudioside A.

Further useful concentrations for rubus extract may be, for example,from 2 ppm to up to 80 ppm. Further useful concentrations for rubusosidemay be, for example, from 2 ppm to up to 56 ppm.

Combinations of these sweetness enhancers with each other and withoptional ingredients were found to have a particularly high sweetnessenhancing effect on a sweetener as described herein.

For example, the following mixtures were found to perform well:

-   -   NarDHC (10 to 60 ppm)+extract swingle (10 to 60 ppm).    -   NarDHC (45 ppm)+swingle extract (45 ppm).    -   NarDHC (45 ppm)+swingle extract (60 ppm).    -   NarDHC (60 ppm)+swingle extract (45 ppm).    -   NarDHC (60 ppm)+swingle extract (60 ppm).

Alternatively to swingle extract, NarDHC may be combined with mogrosideV, rubusoside, rebaudioside A, or stevioside in concentrations neartheir sweetness detection threshold.

The above mixtures may be further enhanced by addition of optionalingredients, for example neohesperidin dihydrochalcone (NDHC). Thefollowing mixtures were found to perform well:

-   -   NarDHC (10 to 60 ppm)+extract swingle (10 to 60 ppm)+NDHC (1 to        2 ppm).    -   NarDHC (60 ppm)+Swingle extract (60 ppm)+NDHC (2 ppm).    -   NarDHC (60 ppm)+Swingle extract (45 ppm)+NDHC (2 ppm).    -   NarDHC (45 ppm)+Swingle extract (45 ppm)+NDHC (1.5 ppm).    -   NarDHC (30 ppm)+Swingle extract (30 ppm)+NDHC (1 ppm).

Alternatively to swingle extract, mogroside V, rubusoside, rubusextract, rebaudioside A, or stevioside, may be used in the mixturesincluding NDHC above.

The determined isointensities to sucrose solutions of the sweetnessenhancers are indicated below.

-   -   60 ppm rubus extract with 42 ppm rubusoside is below the        intensity of 1% sucrose.    -   60 ppm swingle extract with 12.48 ppm mogroside V is isosweet to        0.75% sucrose.    -   45 ppm NarDHC is isosweet to 0.5% sucrose.    -   60 ppm NarDHC is isosweet to 1.25% sucrose.    -   20 ppm rebaudioside A is isosweet to 0.75% sucrose.    -   30 ppm stevioside is isosweet to 0.5% sucrose.    -   40 ppm stevioside is isosweet to 0.75% sucrose.

The sweeteners include, but are not limited to, the sugars sucrose,fructose, glucose, high fructose corn syrup (containing fructose andglucose), xylose, arabinose, and rhamnose, the sugar alcoholserythritol, xylitol, mannitol, sorbitol, and inositol, and theartificial sweeteners AceK, aspartame, neotame, sucralose, andsaccharine, and combinations of these sweeteners.

Sucrose, also known as table sugar or saccharose, is a disaccharide ofglucose and fructose. Its systematic name isα-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→2)-β-D-fructofuranose. Fructose and glucose aremonosaccharide sugars.

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) consists of a mixture of glucose andfructose. Like ordinary corn syrup, the high fructose variety is madefrom corn starch using enzymes. The fructose content of corn syrup(glucose) is increased through enzymatic processing. Common commercialgrades of high fructose corn syrup include fructose contents of 42%,55%, or 90%. The 55% grade is most commonly used in soft drinks.

Erythritol (systematic name 1,2,3,4-butanetetrol) is a naturalnon-caloric sugar alcohol.

AceK, aspartame, neotame and and sucralose are artificial sweeteners.

Acesulfam potassium (AceK) is the potassium salt of6-methyl-1,2,3-oxathiazine-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide, an N-sulfonylamide. Itis also known as Acesulfam K or AceK, or under various trademark namesincluding Sunett® and Sweet One®. In the European Union it is also knownunder the E number (additive code) E950.

Aspartame is the name for aspartyl-phenylalanine-1-methyl ester, adipeptide. It is known under various trademark names including Equal®,and Canderel®. In the European Union, it is also known under the Enumber (additive code) E951.

Sucralose is the name for 6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-β-D-fructo-furanosyl4-chloro-4-deoxy-α-D-galactopyranoside, which is a chlorodeoxysugar. Itis also known by the trade name Splenda®. In the European Union, it isalso known under the E number (additive code) E955.

The natural sweeteners may be used in pure or partly purified form, andmay be chemically synthesised, produced by biotechnological processesincluding fermentation, or isolated from a natural source, in particulara botanical source (including, without limitation, fruits, sugar cane,sugar beet), for example a plant extract or syrup including, withoutlimitation, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, honey, molasses, maplesyrup, fruit concentrates, and other syrups and extracts.

The sweetness enhancers and some of their synonyms and plant sources arelisted below.

Naringin dihydrochalcone (NarDHC) is also known as-[4-[[2-O-(6-Deoxy-L-mannopyranosyl)-D-glucopyranosyl]oxy]-2,6-dihydroxyphenyl]-3-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-propanone.The chemical structure is given below.

Rubus extract is the extract of the plant Rubus suavissimus and containsrubusoside. Rubusoside may be purified from the extract and used inpurified form or the extract may be used. Alternatively to Rubussuavissimus extract, another botanical extract containing a sufficientamount of rubusoside may be used. The chemical structure of rubusosideis given below.

Swingle extract is also known as swingle, Lo Han, Lo Han Guo, or Lo HanGou. Swingle extract contains mogrosides and can be extracted from theplant Siraitia grosvenorii. Siraitia grosvenorii (syn. Momordicagrosvenorii, Thiadiantha grosvenorii); also called arhat fruit orlongevity fruit; or in simplified Chinese luó hàn gu{hacek over (o)} orluo han kuo. The plant contains mogrosides, a group of triterpeneglycosides that make up approximately 1% of the flesh of the freshfruit. Through extraction an extract in the form of a powder containing80% mogrosides can be obtained. Mogroside extract contains mogroside V(major active), mogroside IIa, mogroside IIb, mogroside III, mogrosideIV, 11-oxo mogroside V, and siamenoside I.

The structure of mogroside V is given below:

Alternatively to swingle extract, another botanical extract containing asufficient amount of mogroside V may be used.

Stevioside is a terpenoid glycoside also known as stevia, and is foundin extracts of the plant Stevia rebaudiana.

Rebaudioside A is a terpenoid glycoside that is found in extract ofStevia rebaudiana. The chemical structure is given below.

The sweetness enhancers can be used in purified or isolated form or inthe form of a botanical extract comprising the sweetness enhancingactives.

The sweetness enhancers can be used as a single sweetness enhancingcomponent in a concentration as indicated below in a formulationcontaining 0.0001 to 15% (wt/wt) or more of at least one sweetener. Auseful concentration for a sweetener is a concentration that on its ownprovides an isointensity to a sucrose solution of at least 2%, forexample 2% to 15%, or 5% to 12%.

For example, a useful concentration of sucrose, fructose, glucose, highfructose corn syrup (HFCS) or erythritol may be from about 5% to about12%.

One or more sweetness enhancers as defined-herein may be mixed withoptional ingredients, in particular ingredients selected fromNeohesperidin dihydrochalcone (NDHC), and stevioside. A usefulconcentration for NDHC is 1 to 5 ppm. Stevioside may be added in aconcentration of, for example, 10-100 ppm.

Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone (NDHC, E959) is a known sweetness enhancerof sucrose and/or stevioside, though its effectiveness at its sweetnessdetection threshold for sucrose is disputed. For example, Kroeze et al.,Chem. Senses 2000, 25, 555-559 disclose that NDHC does not enhancesucrose sweetness at its sweetness detection threshold.

If rubus extract, rubusoside, swingle extract, mogroside V, rebaudiosideA or stevioside are mixed with NDHC, the enhancement effect remains morethan additive (a suppression effect has been described for manysweeteners), and NDHC even further enhances the sweetness.

The sweetness enhancers can be added to consumables to enhance thesweetness of sweeteners herein described present in said consumables oradded to such consumables.

Consumables include all food products, including but not limited to,cereal products, rice products, tapioca products, sago products, baker'sproducts, biscuit products, pastry products, bread products,confectionery products, desert products, gums, chewing gums, chocolates,ices, honey products, treacle products, yeast products, baking-powder,salt and spice products, savory products, mustard products, vinegarproducts, sauces (condiments), tobacco products, cigars, cigarettes,processed foods, cooked fruits and vegetable products, meat and meatproducts, jellies, jams, fruit sauces, egg products, milk and dairyproducts, yoghurts, cheese products, butter and butter substituteproducts, milk substitute products, soy products, edible oils and fatproducts, medicaments, beverages, carbonated beverages, alcoholicdrinks, beers, soft drinks, mineral and aerated waters and othernon-alcoholic drinks, fruit drinks, fruit juices, coffee, artificialcoffee, tea, cocoa, including forms requiring reconstitution, foodextracts, plant extracts, meat extracts, condiments, sweeteners,nutraceuticals, gelatins, pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical gums,tablets, lozenges, drops, emulsions, elixirs, syrups and otherpreparations for making beverages, and combinations thereof.

Consumables may contain acids to provide a low pH. For example, manybeverages have a low pH, for example, from pH 2.6 to 3. The sweetnessenhancers herein-described also work under low pH conditions and show anenhancement effect.

How to sweeten consumables using sweeteners herein-described in asufficient amount is well-known in the art. Depending on the consumable,the amount of sweetener can be reduced by addition of the sweetnessenhancers herein-described. For example, for sucrose as sweetener, areduction of about 1 to 4° Brix or more can be achieved.

Consumables may contain any amount of a sweetener as described herein. Auseful range is, for example, at least 2%, for example about 2% to 15%,or about 5% to 12% of one or more selected from sucrose, fructose,glucose, high fructose corn syrup, or erythritol.

A useful range for artificial sweeteners is in a concentration isosweetto about 2 to 15% sucrose.

Different sweeteners may be used in combination in a concentrationequivalent to at least 2% isointensity to sucrose.

For example, carbonated beverages usually contain about 10% to 12% highfructose corn syrup and/or sucrose.

EXAMPLES

The sweetness intensities used in sensory evaluations are as follows:

-   -   Barely detectable sweet taste is the sweetness of 0.5% sucrose        solution    -   Weak sweet taste is the sweetness of 1% sucrose solution    -   Mild sweet taste is the sweetness of 2% sucrose    -   Strong sweet taste is the sweetness of 7% sucrose.

In comparative evaluations, the following descriptors are used inascending order:

-   -   “barely perceivable late onsetting sweetness”, “barely        perceivable sweetness”, “very weak sweetness”, “weakly sweeter        than sucrose control”, “notably sweeter than sucrose control”,        “much sweeter than sucrose control”, “substantially sweeter than        sucrose control”.

In all examples, the following extracts/compounds were used in theindicated concentration and quantity, unless otherwise stated. Allconcentrations in % are % (wt/wt), unless otherwise indicated.

Rubus suavissimus extract, also called rubus extract or rubusosideextract, contained 70% rubusoside by weight and is commerciallyavailable from Corona Science and Technology Corporation, Fu Zhouprovince, China. 60 ppm 70% rubusoside equals 42 ppm rubusoside.

Swingle extract, also known as Lou Han Gou extract, contained 80%, byweight, mogrosides comprising the naturally occurring terpene glycosidesmogroside IV, mogroside V and 11-oxo-mogroside V and also the terpeneglycoside siamenoside I in the final spray dried extract to equal 32.6%by weight. The concentration of mogroside V, which is the main mogrosideactive in the extract, is 20.8%. 11-oxo-mogroside V, mogroside IV andsiamenoside I have been roughly quantified and together make not morethan 12%, or lower.

Accordingly, a 60 ppm (0.0060% wt/wt) solution of swingle extractcontains 12.48 ppm (0.001248% wt/wt) mogroside V, 45 ppm swinglecontains 9.36 ppm mogroside V and 20 ppm contains 4.16 ppm mogroside V.The swingle extract is commercially available from Corona Science andTechnology Corporation, Fu Zhou province, China.

With regard to the purity of the compounds employed, naringindihydrochalcone had a concentration of >99%, neohesperidindihydrochalcone had a concentration of >98%, rebaudioside A had aconcentration of >99%, and stevioside had a concentration of >95%.

In the following, an overview over examples is given.

-   -   Examples 1-4 describe the methods in general.    -   Examples 5A-5C relate to NarDHC (Naringin Dihydrochalcone).    -   Examples 6A-6E relate to rubus extract.    -   Examples 7A-7F relate to swingle extract.    -   Examples 8A-8E relate to rebaudioside A.    -   Examples 9 A-9D relate to stevioside.    -   Examples 10 A-C and 11 A-H relate to mixtures of sweetness        enhancers.    -   Examples 10 A-C relate to mixtures of two sweetness enhancers.    -   Examples 11A-H relate to mixtures of two sweetness enhancers        plus NDHC.    -   Examples 12 A-12I relate to control examples of all sweetness        enhancers

Example 1 Comparative Sensory Evaluation of Sweetness Enhancers in 2 or7% Sucrose

The test samples contained the potential sweetness enhancers in 0%sucrose (water), 2% sucrose, or 7% sucrose, and control samples of 0%,2% and 7% sucrose without any additive. The sensory evaluations wereconducted as follows. All samples were presented at ambient temperaturein 15 ml aliquots to panels consisting of 5-9 sweet sensitive subjectsof varying sweet sensitivity. After tasting each sample, the mouth wasrinsed thoroughly with water at ambient temperature prior to tasting thenext sample. The sucrose positive control (2% or 7%) was presented firstand served as the sweetness reference to which all sweetnessenhancer/sucrose combinations were directly compared.

One tasting sequence included tasting the sucrose control first, rinsingwith water, tasting the sweetness enhancer/sucrose sample, rinsing withwater followed by tasting the sucrose control again. Once the sequencewas completed, each panelist chose the sample which was sweeter andevaluated the sweetness of each sample relative to one another.

In a second tasting sequence, this same procedure was followed for thewater negative control versus the sweetness enhancer/water samples todetermine the sweet taste due to the sweetness enhancer itself at eachtested concentration. Panelists evaluated the sweetness of the sweetnessenhancer in water for each concentration. For their evaluation,panelists were allowed to compare any perceived sweetness of thesweetness enhancer to the 2% or 7% sucrose control to determine therelative intensity of sweetness. Mild sweet taste corresponds to thetaste of 2% sucrose, strong sweet taste corresponds to the taste of 7%sucrose.

Further descriptors below or above the degree of sweetness of thesucrose controls that were used were, in ascending order, “barelyperceivable late onsetting sweetness”, “barely perceivable sweetness”,“very weak sweetness” (for the samples below 2% sucrose), and “weaklysweeter than sucrose control”, “notably sweeter than sucrose control”,“much sweeter than sucrose control”, “substantially sweeter than sucrosecontrol” (for the samples above the sucrose control).

Alternatively to sucrose, the evaluation may be performed with anothersweetener, for example, high fructose (55%) corn syrup (HFCS, containing55% fructose and 45% glucose), erythritol, sucralose, aspartame, oracesulfame potassium (AceK).

Example 2 A Forced Choice Test of Sweetness Enhancers in Water, 2%Sucrose and 7% Sucrose

All sweetness enhancer samples were evaluated at the same concentration,which was selected close to the threshold of each sweetness enhancer, in0% sucrose (water), 2% sucrose, and 7% sucrose.

The test samples were evaluated by a sensory panel of 10 sweet sensitivepanelists. Samples were presented in 3 replicates to each panelist togive n=30 evaluations for each panel. The sensory evaluation wasconducted using a forced choice method. Samples were presented blind,unidentifiable by panelists. Three runs at different sucroseconcentrations were performed (0% sucrose (water/negative control), 2%sucrose, 7% sucrose). In each run, the sweetness enhancer sample wascompared by panelists to a corresponding sample without sweetnessenhancer at the same sucrose concentration. Panelists were instructedthat they had to choose one of the samples as sweeter. The data wasanalysed using beta-binomial analysis. Further, panelists were asked torate each presented sample for sweetness using the generalized labeledmagnitude scale (0=no sweetness; 10=strongest imaginable sensation ofany kind). The rating data was compared using the paired t-test.

Alternatively, 0% (water), 0.5% and/or 1% and/or 1.5% sucrose were usedfor samples/corresponding controls and evaluated accordingly.

As a further control, the sweetness enhancer in water was compared to0.5% and/or 1% and/or 1.5% sucrose. The result determined the sweetnessintensity of the sweetness enhancer compound as such, without thesweetness due to the enhancement of sucrose.

Example 3 Ranking Tests to Determine the Sweetness Isointensity ofSweetness Enhancers to Sucrose Solutions

For comparative ranking, samples of 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% and11% sucrose solutions were prepared.

3a) Sweetness Isointensity of Sweetness Enhancer in Sucrose Solutions

The sensory evaluation was conducted using a ranking method. Samples atambient temperature were randomly presented in 15 ml blind aliquots(unidentifiable by panelists). Panels consisted of 10 sweet sensitivesubjects and samples were presented in 4 replications over 2 sessions.After tasting each sample, the mouth was rinsed thoroughly with water atambient temperature prior to tasting the next sample. Panelists werepresented with 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 11% sucrose samples and a sixth sampleof 7% sucrose with a sweetness enhancer in a concentration near itssweetness detection threshold. They were asked to rank the samples fromlow to high with respect to perceived sweet taste. R-indices werecalculated for 7% sucrose with the sweetness enhancer versus 7%, 8%, 9%,10% or 11% sucrose.

3b) Near Threshold Sweetness Isointensity of Sweetness Enhancer in Water

The sensory evaluation was conducted using a ranking method. Samples atambient temperature were randomly presented in 15 ml blind aliquots(unidentifiable by panelists). Panels consisted of 10 sweet sensitivesubjects and samples were presented in 4 replications over 2 sessions.After tasting each sample, the mouth was rinsed thoroughly with water atambient temperature prior to tasting the next sample. Panelists werepresented with either 0.5% and 1% sucrose or 1% and 1.5% sucrose and athird sample of water with a sweetness enhancer in a concentration nearits sweetness detection threshold. They were asked to rank the samplesfrom low to high with respect to perceived sweet taste. R-indices werecalculated for the sweetness enhancer in water versus either 0.5% and 1%sucrose or 1% and 1.5% sucrose.

An R-index greater than the higher critical value means that thesweetness enhancer sample was significantly sweeter than the sucrosesample. An R-index from 50% to the critical value means the sweetnessenhancer sample had an equivalent sweetness to the compared sucrosesample. An R-index below the lower critical value indicates that thesucrose sample was sweeter than the sweetness enhancer sample.

Example 4 Paired Comparisons of Sweetness Enhancers and Mixtures Thereofin Water and 7% Sucrose

Samples of sweetness enhancers were prepared in water or 7% sucrose.One, two or three sweetness enhancers were used in a sample. All sampleswere presented to panelists at ambient temperature. The sensoryevaluation was conducted using a paired comparison method. Samples inwater were only compared to other samples in water, the same applies tosamples in 7% sucrose. Samples were paired randomly and presented inunidentifyable pairs of two (left and right) to the panelists in randomorder. The sample on the left was tasted first, followed by rinsing themouth with water, then tasting the sample on the right. Once completingthe sequence, each panelist ranked the pair of samples for sweetnessthen evaluated samples with respect to one another with the followingdescriptors (in ascending order): “significantly less sweet”, “lesssweet”, “notably less sweet”, “isosweet”, “weakly sweeter”, “notablysweeter”, “sweeter”.

Examples 5A-5C Naringin Dihydrochalcone (NarDHC) Example 5A ComparativeSensory Evaluation of NarDHC in 2% Sucrose

NarDHC (20, 60 and 100 ppm) was evaluated as a sweetness enhancer in 2%sucrose as described in example 1. The results are indicated in thetable below.

NarDHC [ppm] Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity 0 in water nosweetness (negative control) 0 in 2% sucrose mild sweet taste (positivecontrol) 20 in 2% sucrose notably sweeter than sucrose control 60 in 2%sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 100 in 2% sucrosesubstantially sweeter than 2% sucrose control 20 in water barelyperceived delayed sweetness vs. 2% sucrose control 60 in water very weakdelayed sweetness far below 2% sucrose control 100 in water mildsweetness slightly below 2% sucrose control

The 100 ppm NarDHC in 2% sucrose was perceived as substantially sweeterthan the sucrose control by panelists. For 100 ppm NarDHC in water, amild sweetness slightly below 2% sucrose control was perceived.

The 60 ppm NarDHC in 2% sucrose was perceived as much sweeter than thesucrose control by panelists. The 60 ppm NarDHC in water had a very weakdelayed sweetness far below 2% sucrose in water alone.

The 20 ppm NarDHC in 2% sucrose was perceived as notably sweeter thanthe sucrose control. The 20 ppm NarDHC in water was barely perceived assweet with a delayed onset only perceived after holding in the mouth forseveral seconds.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 2% sucrose by NarDHC when used in concentrations at or belowsweetness detection level (20 ppm, and 60 ppm). The NarDHC in watersamples that were tested in the same concentration in comparisondemonstrate that the detected enhancement effect was not due to thesweetness of the NarDHC as such in these concentrations.

For NarDHC at 100 ppm, while 2% sucrose was perceived as substantiallysweeter than the sucrose control, NarDHC in water already tasted mildlysweet. Even though this was below the sucrose control in the degree ofperceived sweetness, a more than additive effect was not seen at theconcentration of 100 ppm in this test.

Example 5B Ranking Test of 45 ppm NarDHC in 7% Sucrose, Determining itsSucrose Isointensity

A 45 ppm NarDHC in 7% sucrose sample was evaluated for its isointensityto sucrose solutions in a concentration of 7-11% using the rankingmethod described in example 3. The results are indicated in the tablebelow.

sucrose NarDHC Critical solution sample R-index value [% wt/wt]sweetness [%] [%] p-value 7% sweeter 89% 64.61 P < 0.05 8% isosweet 53%64.61 P < 0.05 9% less sweet 12% 35.39 P < 0.05 10%  less sweet  4%35.39 P < 0.05 11%  less sweet 0.6%  35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index of 89%, which is greater than the critical value (64.61%),means that the NarDHC sample was significantly sweeter than the sucrosesample at 7%. An R-index of 53% (i.e. below the critical value) isequivalent to chance meaning the NarDHC sample was isosweet to 8%sucrose. The R-index between 0.6%-12%, which was below the criticalvalue (35.39%), means the NarDHC sample was less sweet than either 9%,10% and 11% sucrose.

Accordingly, 45 ppm NarDHC in 7% sucrose adds 1° Brix of sucrosesweetness intensity to enhance the sweetness to the equivalent of an 8%sucrose solution.

Based on the sweetness of NarDHC determined in control example 12A asisosweet to 0.5% sucrose, 45 ppm NarDHC in 7% sucrose would be expectedto taste equivalent to 7.5% sucrose if the effect were merely additive.However, as shown in the present example, the combination of 45 ppmNarDHC in 7% sucrose had a sweetness isointense to 8% sucrose which wasgreater than expected.

Example 5C Ranking Test of 60 ppm NarDHC in 7% Sucrose, Determining itsSucrose Isointensity

A 60 ppm NarDHC in 7% sucrose sample was evaluated for isointensity tosucrose solutions in a concentration of 7-11% using the ranking methoddescribed in example 3. The results are indicated in the table below.

sucrose solution NarDHC sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt]sweetness [%] [%] p-value 7% Sweeter 97% 64.61 P < 0.05 8% Sweeter 78%64.61 P < 0.05 9% Isosweet 36% 35.39 P < 0.05 10%  less sweet  8% 35.39P < 0.05 11%  less sweet  1% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index 78%-89%, which is greater than the critical value (64.61%),means that the NarDHC sample was significantly sweeter than the sucrosesample at 7% or 8%. An R-index of 36%, which is equal to the criticalvalue (35.39%) means the NarDHC sample was isosweet to 9% sucrose. TheR-index 1%-8%, which is below the critical value (35.39%), means theNarDHC sample was less sweet than either 10% or 11% sucrose.

Accordingly, 60 ppm NarDHC in 7% sucrose adds 2° Brix sucrose sweetnessintensity to enhance the sweetness to the equivalent of a 9% sucrosesolution.

Based on this result, the 7% sucrose+60 ppm NarDHC would be expected tobe equivalent in sweetness to sucrose of from above 8% to below 8.5%,interpolated to 8.25% sucrose, if the effect were merely additiveaccording to example 12A. However, as shown above, the combination of 60ppm NarDHC with 7% sucrose had a sweetness isointensity to 9% sucrose,clearly greater than the expected effect.

Examples 6A-6E Rubus Extract Example 6A Comparative Sensory Evaluationof Rubus Extract in 2% Sucrose

Rubus extract (20 ppm and 60 ppm), comprising 70% rubusoside by weight,was evaluated as a sweetness enhancer in 2% sucrose as described inexample 1. The results are indicated in the table below.

Rubus extract Sensory evaluation [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 in water(negative control) no sweetness 0 in 2% sucrose (positive mild sweettaste control) 20 in 2% sucrose notably sweeter than sucrose control 60in 2% sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 20 in water no sweetness60 in water barely perceivable sweetness

The 60 ppm rubus extract in 2% sucrose was perceived as much sweeterthan the sucrose control by panelists. The 60 ppm rubus extract in waterwas barely perceived as sweet.

The 20 ppm rubus extract in 2% sucrose was perceived as notably sweeterthan the sucrose control. The 20 ppm rubus extract in water was notperceived as sweet.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 2% sucrose by rubus extract when used in concentrations at or belowsweetness detection level (60 ppm and 20 ppm). The rubus extract inwater samples that were tested in the same concentration in comparisondemonstrate that the detected enhancement effect was not due to thesweetness of the rubus extract as such. Further, the results in controlexample 12B show that the sweetness of 60 ppm rubus extract wassignificantly below that of 1% sucrose.

Example 6B Comparative Sensory Evaluation of Rubus Extract in 7% Sucrose

Rubus extract (20 ppm and 60 ppm), comprising 70% rubusoside by weight,was evaluated as a sweetness enhancer in 7% sucrose as described inexample 1. The results are indicated in the table below.

Sensory evaluation Rubus extract [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 in water(negative control) no sweetness 0 in 7% sucrose (positive strong sweettaste control) 20 in 7% sucrose notably sweeter than sucrose control 60in 7% sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 20 in water no sweetness60 in water barely perceivable sweetness

For all concentrations of rubus extract (20 ppm, 60 ppm) in 7% sucrose,a significant increase in sweetness intensity was determined bypanelists that was significantly above the sweetness intensitydetermined in the sucrose control.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% sucrose by rubus extract when used in concentrations at or belowsweetness detection level (60 ppm, 20 ppm). The rubus extract in watersamples that were tested in the same concentration in comparisondemonstrate that the detected enhancement effect was not due to thesweetness of the rubus extract as such. Further, the results in controlexample 12B show that the sweetness of 60 ppm rubus extract wassignificantly below that of 1% sucrose.

Example 6C Ranking Test of 60 ppm Rubus Extract in 7% Sucrose,Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A 60 ppm rubus extract, comprising 70% rubusoside by weight, in 7%sucrose sample was evaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in aconcentration of 7-11% using the ranking method described in example 3.The results are indicated in the table below.

Sucrose solution Rubus sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] sweetness[%] [%] p-value 7% sweeter 92% 67.45% P < 0.01 8% sweeter 71% 67.45% P <0.01 9% less sweet 28% 32.55% P < 0.01 10%  less sweet  9% 32.55% P <0.01 11%  less sweet  5% 32.55% P < 0.01

An R-index of 92% and 71%, which is greater than the higher criticalvalue (67.45%), means that the 70% rubus extract sample wassignificantly sweeter than the sucrose sample at 7% and at 8% sucrose.An R-index from 50% to the critical value (67.45%) would mean that the70% rubus extract sample had an equivalent sweetness to the comparedsucrose sample. An R-index of 28% which is below the lower criticalvalue (32.55%) indicates that the sucrose sample was sweeter than the70% rubus extract sample.

The data shows that the perceived sweetness of 7% sucrose with 60 ppmrubus extract was significantly higher than the sweetness of 8% sucrosebut below the sweetness of 9% sucrose.

The results in control example 12B show that the sweetness of 60 ppmrubus extract was significantly below that of 1% sucrose. Accordingly,the effect shown wherein the sweetness is enhanced by an equivalent ofmore than 1° Brix sucrose sweetness intensity (7% sucrose with rubusextract tastes sweeter than 8% sucrose) clearly shows a more thanadditive effect.

Example 6D Comparative Sensory Evaluation of Rubus Extract in HFCS

Rubus extract (20 ppm and 60 ppm), comprising 70% rubusoside by weight,was evaluated as a sweetness enhancer in 7% high fructose (55%) cornsyrup (HFCS) as described in example 1. HFCS has a slightly highersweetness than sucrose. The results are indicated in the table below.

Sensory evaluation Rubus extract [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 inwater-negative control no sweetness 0 in 7% HFCS-(positive control)strong sweet taste 20 in 7% HFCS notably sweeter than HFCS control 60 in7% HFCS much sweeter than HFCS control, bitter 20 in water no sweetness60 in water barely perceivable sweet

The 60 ppm rubus extract in 7% HFCS was perceived as much sweeter thanthe HFCS control by panelists. The 60 ppm rubus extract in water wasbarely perceived as sweet.

The 20 ppm rubus extract in 7% HFCS was perceived as notably sweeterthan the HFCS control by panelists. The 20 ppm rubus extract in waterwas not perceived as sweet.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% HFCS (55%) by rubus extract when used in concentrations at orbelow sweetness detection level (60 ppm and 20 ppm). The rubus extractin water samples that were tested in the same concentration incomparison demonstrate that the detected enhancement effect was not dueto the sweetness of the rubus extract as such. Further, it was shownthat the sweetness of 60 ppm rubus extract was less than that of 1%sucrose (control example 12B).

Example 6E Comparative Sensory Evaluation of 70% Rubus Extract inErythritol

Rubus extract (20 ppm and 60 ppm), comprising 70% rubusoside by weight,was evaluated as sweetness enhancer in 7% erythritol as described inexample 1. Erythritol is about 70% of the sweetness of sucrose(therefore less sweet). The results are indicated in the table below.

Sensory evaluation Rubus extract [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 in water(negative control) no sweetness 0 in 7% erythritol (positive strongsweet taste control) 20 in 7% erythritol notably sweeter than erythritolcontrol 60 in 7% erythritol much sweeter than erythritol control, nobitter 60 in water barely perceivable sweetness 20 in water no sweetness

The 60 ppm rubus extract in 7% erythritol was perceived as much sweeterthan the erythritol control by panelists. The 60 ppm rubus extract inwater was barely perceived as sweet.

The 20 ppm rubus extract in 7% erythritol was perceived as notablysweeter than the erythritol control by panelists. The 20 ppm rubusextract in water was not perceived as sweet.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% erythritol by rubus extract when used in concentrations at orbelow sweetness detection level (60 ppm and 20 ppm). The rubus extractin water samples that were tested in the same concentration incomparison demonstrate that the detected enhancement effect was not dueto the sweetness of the rubus extract as such. Further, it was shownthat the sweetness of 60 ppm rubus extract was less than that of 1%sucrose (control example 12B).

Examples 7A-7F Swingle Extract Example 7A Comparative Sensory Evaluationof Swingle Extract (20, 60 and 100 ppm) in 2% Sucrose

Swingle extract (20 ppm, 60 ppm, 100 ppm) was evaluated as sweetnessenhancer in 2% sucrose as described in example 1. The results areindicated in the table below.

Swingle extract [ppm] Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity 0 inwater (negative control) no sweetness 0 in 2% sucrose (positive mildsweet taste control) 20 in 2% sucrose notably sweeter than sucrosecontrol 60 in 2% sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 100 in 2%sucrose substantially sweeter than sucrose control 20 in water nosweetness 60 in water barely perceivable sweetness vs. 2% sucrosecontrol 100 in water very weak sweet far below the 2% sucrose control

The 100 ppm swingle extract in 2% sucrose was perceived as substantiallysweeter than the sucrose control by panelists. The 100 ppm swingleextract in water was perceived as very weakly sweet and far below thesweetness of 2% sucrose.

The 60 ppm swingle extract in 2% sucrose was perceived as substantiallysweeter than the sucrose control by panelists. The 60 ppm swingleextract in water was barely perceived as sweet.

The 20 ppm swingle extract in 2% sucrose was perceived as notablysweeter than the sucrose control by panelists. The 20 ppm swingleextract in water was not perceived as sweet.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 2% sucrose by swingle extract when used in concentrations at, below,or slightly above sweetness detection level (60 ppm, 20 ppm, and 100ppm). The swingle extract in water samples that were tested in the sameconcentration in comparison demonstrate that the detected enhancementeffect was not due to the sweetness of swingle extract as such.

Example 7B Comparative Sensory Evaluation of Swingle Extract (20, 60 and100 ppm) in 7% Sucrose

Swingle extract (20 ppm, 60 ppm, 100 ppm) was evaluated as sweetnessenhancer in 7% sucrose as described in example 1. The results areindicated in the table below.

Sensory evaluation Swingle extract [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 inwater (negative control) no sweetness 0 in 7% sucrose (positive strongsweet taste control) 20 in 7% sucrose sweeter than sucrose control 60 in7% sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 100 in 7% sucrosesubstantially sweeter than sucrose control 20 in water no sweetness 60in water barely perceivable sweetness 100 in water very weak sweetnessfar below the 2% sucrose control

For all concentrations of swingle extract in 7% sucrose (20, 60, 100ppm), an increase in sweetness intensity was determined by paneliststhat was above the sweetness intensity determined in the 7% sucrosecontrol.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% sucrose by swingle extract when used in concentrations at, below,or slightly above the sweetness detection level (60 ppm, 20 ppm, 100ppm). As the swingle extract in water samples that were tested in thesame concentration in comparison demonstrate, the detected enhancementeffect was not due to the sweetness of the 70% swingle extract as such.

The strength of the enhancement effect of swingle extract on sucrosedepends on the sucrose concentration, and tends to be stronger withincreasing sucrose concentration. If the difference of samples with andwithout sweetness enhancer in 7% sucrose is directly compared to thedifference between samples with and without sweetness enhancer in 2%sucrose (see example 7A), the enhancing effect appears to be strongerwith the higher sucrose concentration.

Example 7C Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract in 7% Sucrose,Determining the Sucrose Isointensity

A 60 ppm swingle extract in 7% sucrose sample was evaluated for itsisointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentration of 7-11% using theranking method described in example 3. The results are indicated in thetable below.

sucrose solution Swingle sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt]sweetness [%] [%] p-value 7% Sweeter 92% 72.18 P < 0.001 8% Sweeter 68%67.45 P < 0.01  9% less sweet 25% 27.82 P < 0.001 10%  less sweet  7%27.82 P < 0.001 11%  less sweet  5% 27.82 P < 0.001

An R-index of 92%, which is greater than the higher critical value(72.18%), means that the swingle sample was significantly sweeter thanthe sucrose sample at 7%. An R-index from 50% to the critical value(67.45%) would mean that the swingle sample had an equivalent sweetnessto the compared sucrose sample. At 68% it was slightly higher than aconcentration of 8% sucrose.

An R-index of 25% below the lower critical value (27.82%) indicates thatthe sucrose sample was sweeter than the swingle sample.

The data shows that the perceived sweetness of 7% sucrose with 60 ppmswingle was significantly higher than the sweetness of 8% sucrose butbelow the sweetness of 9% sucrose, 8.5% by interpolation.

As a control, 60 ppm swingle in water had an isointensity of above 0.5%but below 1% sucrose (0.75% by interpolation, compare example 12C).Accordingly, the 7% sucrose+60 ppm swingle extract (isosweet to below 1%sucrose and above 0.5% sucrose, interpolated to 0.75% sucrose), would beexpected to be isosweet to below 8% sucrose, or below 7.75% sucrose byinterpolation. However, the determined isointensity was above 8%sucrose, interpolated to 8.5% sucrose, clearly above the expectedeffect.

Example 7D Comparative Sensory Evaluation of Swingle Extract in HFCS

Swingle extract (20 ppm and 60 ppm) was evaluated as a sweetnessenhancer in 7% high fructose (55%) corn syrup (HFCS) as described inexample 1. The results are indicated in the table below.

Sensory evaluation Swingle extract [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 inwater (negative control) no sweetness 0 in 7% HFCS (positive control)strong sweet taste 20 in 7% HFCS notably sweeter than HFCS control 60 in7% HFCS much sweeter than HFCS control 20 in water no sweetness 60 inwater barely perceivable sweetness

The 60 ppm swingle extract in 7% HFCS (55%) was perceived as muchsweeter than the HFCS control by panelists. The 60 ppm swingle extractin water was barely perceived as sweet.

The 20 ppm swingle extract in 7% HFCS (55%) was perceived as notablysweeter than the HFCS control. The 20 ppm swingle extract in water wasnot perceived as sweet.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% HFCS (55%) by swingle extract when used in concentrations at orbelow sweetness detection level (60 ppm and 20 ppm). The swingle extractin water samples that were tested in the same concentration incomparison demonstrate that the detected enhancement effect was not dueto the sweetness of the swingle extract as such.

Example 7E Comparative Sensory Evaluation of Swingle Extract inErythritol

Swingle extract (20 ppm and 60 ppm) was evaluated as a sweetnessenhancer in 7% erythritol as described in example 1. The results areindicated in the table below.

Swingle extract Sensory evaluation of [ppm] sweetness intensity 0 inwater (negative control) no sweetness 0 in 7% erythritol (positivecontrol) strong sweet taste 20 in 7% erythritol notably sweeter thanerythritol control 60 in 7% erythritol much sweeter than erythritolcontrol 20 in water no sweetness 60 in water barely perceivablesweetness

The 60 ppm swingle extract in 7% erythritol was perceived as muchsweeter than the erythritol control by panelists. The 60 ppm swingleextract in water was barely perceived as sweet.

The 20 ppm swingle extract in 7% erythritol was perceived as notablysweeter than the erythritol control by panelists. The 20 ppm swingleextract in water was not perceived as sweet.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% erythritol by swingle extract when used in concentrations at orbelow sweetness detection level of swingle (60 ppm and 20 ppm). Theswingle extract in water samples that were tested in the sameconcentration in comparison demonstrate that the detected enhancementeffect was not due to the sweetness of the swingle extract as such.

Example 7F Fractionated Swingle Extract Comparative Sensory Evaluationof in 0% and 2% Sucrose

Swingle extract, comprising 80% total mogroside content by weight, wasfractionated by reversed phase (C-18) flash chromatography. Compoundswere eluted using a mixture of methanol (MeOH) in water starting at 30%MeOH (264 ml) followed by a linear gradient of 30-80% MeOH (1320 ml)then finally the column was flushed with 80% MeOH (264 ml). The solventswere introduced at a flow rate of 30 ml/min throughout the separationprocedure. Eluted compounds were visualized with a UV detector set at210 nm and a Corona light scattering detector. Collected fractions werepooled according to the table below then freeze dried to powders.

The powders corresponding to various pooled fractions as given in thetable below were dissolved in a concentration of 60 ppm in either 0% or2% sucrose. The taste of these samples was compared by panelists tocontrols of 0% and 2% sucrose accordingly as indicated in the tablebelow. The sample in 0% sucrose when determined to be sweet was inaddition to the 0% sucrose control also compared to a 2% sucrose controland to the other fractions to estimate the degree of sweetness. Thecomparative degree of sweetness is indicated (in ascending order: barelydetectably sweet—very much below 2% sucrose—much below 2% sucrose—below2% sucrose—close to 2% sucrose).

Thus the sweetness enhancement effect each fraction or pool of fractionsexhibited in 2% sucrose was determined.

The results are indicated in the table below.

Mogroside Sweetness of V fraction in 2% Sweetness of fraction Fraction #content sucrose vs. 2% in 0% sucrose (combined) (%) sucrose control vs.0% sucrose control 3-7 0 same same  8-12 0 same same 13-15 0 same same16-20 0 slightly sweeter same 21-25 0 slightly sweeter same 26-30 0slightly sweeter same 31-33 0 slightly sweeter same 34 2.8 notablysweeter very weakly sweet (very much below 2% sucrose) 35 42.1 muchsweeter same 36 88.5 very much sweeter sweet (much below 2% sucrose) 3773.4 very much sweeter sweet (below 2% sucrose) 38 65.1 very muchsweeter sweet (below 2% sucrose control) 39 40.1 much sweeter slightlysweet 40 11.3 slightly sweeter very weakly sweet (very much below 2%sucrose) 41 2.6 slightly sweeter barely detectably sweet 42-48 0.9sweeter same

The strongest enhancement effect was observed within fractions 35-39,which contained the main part of the mogroside V content.

Fractions 34 and 35 also had a weaker enhancement effect. An analysis byliquid chromatography and mass spectrometry of fractions 34 and 35showed that they contained siamenoside I.

Pooled fractions 42-48 showed an even weaker enhancement effect. Ananalysis by liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry of pooledfractions 42-28 showed mogroside IV.

This indicates that the observed enhancement effect was mainly due tomogroside V, with siamenoside I and mogroside IV contributing marginallyin comparison.

An advantage of the main mogroside V fractions (36-38), and alsofraction 35 that contained siamenoside I, was the clean sweet taste withno or only very slight herbal note at the used low concentration (60ppm).

Example 8A-8E Rebaudioside A Example 8A Rebaudioside A ComparativeSensory Evaluation of Rebaudioside A (1, 10, 20 and 30 ppm) in 2%Sucrose

Rebaudioside A (99%+, purified from plant extract, Sweet Aloha Farms,LLC) (1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 30 ppm) was evaluated in 2% sucrose asdescribed in example 1. The results are indicated in the table below.

Rebaudioside A Sensory evaluation [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 inwater (negative control) no sweetness 0 in 2% sucrose (positive mildsweet taste control) 1 in 2% sucrose barely perceived as sweeter thansucrose control 10 in 2% sucrose notably sweeter than sucrose control 20in 2% sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 30 in 2% sucrosesubstantially sweeter than sucrose control 1 in water no sweetness 10 inwater barely perceivable, late onsetting sweet 20 in water barelyperceivable sweetness 30 in water very weak sweetness far below the 2%sucrose control

For all concentrations of rebaudioside A in 2% sucrose (1, 10, 20, 30ppm), an increase in sweetness intensity was determined by paneliststhat was above the sweetness intensity determined in the 2% sucrosecontrol.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 2% sucrose by rebaudioside A when used in concentrations at, below,or slightly above the sweetness detection level (1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppmand 30 ppm). As the rebaudioside A in water samples that were tested inthe same concentration in comparison demonstrate, the detectedenhancement effect was not due to the sweetness of rebaudioside A assuch.

Example 8B Rebaudioside A Comparative Sensory Evaluation of RebaudiosideA (1, 10, 20 and 300 ppm) in 7% Sucrose

Rebaudioside A (99%+, purified from plant extract, Sweet Aloha Farms,LLC) (1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 30 ppm) was evaluated in 7% sucrose asdescribed in example 1. The results are indicated in the table below.

Sensory evaluation Rebaudioside A [ppm] of sweetness intensity 0 inwater (negative control) no sweetness 0 in 7% sucrose (positive strongsweet taste control) 1 in 7% sucrose very weakly sweeter than sucrosecontrol 10 in 7% sucrose notably sweeter than sucrose control 20 in 7%sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 30 in 7% sucrose substantiallysweeter than sucrose control 1 in water no sweetness 10 in water barelyperceivable, late onsetting sweet 20 in water barely perceivablesweetness 30 in water very weak sweetness far below the 2% sucrosecontrol

For all concentrations of rebaudioside A in 7% sucrose (1, 10, 20, 30ppm), an increase in sweetness intensity was determined by paneliststhat was above the sweetness intensity determined in the 7% sucrosecontrol.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% sucrose by rebaudioside A when used in concentrations at, below,or slightly above the sweetness detection level (1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppmand 30 ppm). As the rebaudioside A in water samples that were tested inthe same concentration in comparison demonstrate, the detectedenhancement effect was not due to the sweetness of rebaudioside A assuch.

If the difference of samples with and without sweetness enhancer in 7%sucrose is directly compared to the difference between samples with andwithout sweetness enhancer in 2% sucrose (see example 8A), the enhancingeffect was stronger with the higher sucrose concentration. This showsthat the strength of the enhancement effect of rebaudioside A on sucrosedepends on the sucrose concentration, and is stronger with increasingsucrose concentration.

Example 8C Rebaudioside A Sweetness Quality Evaluation of Rebaudioside A(1, 10, 20 and 30 ppm) in 2% Sucrose

Rebaudioside A (99%+, purified from plant extract, Sweet Aloha Farms,LLC) (1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 30 ppm) in 2% sucrose samples was evaluatedfor the qualities of the sweetness of the samples (time of onset,localization, duration). The sensory evaluations were conducted asfollows. All samples were presented at ambient temperature in 15 mlaliquots and presented blindly to sweet sensitive subjects of varyingsweet sensitivity. Subjects tasted the samples and were asked toevaluate the quality of sweetness. Sucrose solutions (2% and 7%) werepresented as references.

Rebaudioside A [ppm] Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity 0 in 2%sucrose immediate onset, full mouth sweet, non-lingering (reference) 0in 7% sucrose immediate onset, full mouth sweet, non-lingering(reference) 1 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, full mouth sweet,non-lingering 10 in 2% sucrose immediate onset full mouth sweet,non-lingering 20 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, full mouth sweet,non-lingering 30 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, sweetness localized tothe periphery of the tongue, not a “full mouth” sweet, slightlylingering

All rebaudioside samples in 2% sucrose were evaluated to have apleasantly sweet taste. In each case, the sweetness was perceived allover the oral cavity (“full mouth sweet”) with an immediate onset.

The evaluation of the 30 ppm rebaudioside A sample showed a localizationof the sweetness perception at the periphery of the tongue instead ofthe entire oral cavity as observed for the 1 ppm, 10 ppm and 20 ppmrebaudioside A samples, or for the sucrose references (2+7%). The 30 ppmrebaudioside A sample was described by panelists to have a lingeringsweet aftertaste that was not perceived at 20 ppm rebaudioside A orbelow perceived mainly at the periphery of the tongue rather than in thewhole oral cavity (“full mouth sweetness”). The lingering taste qualityis often described as cloying and licorice like.

Example 8D Rebaudioside A Sweetness Quality Evaluation of Rebaudioside A(1, 10, 20 and 30 ppm) in 7% Sucrose

Rebaudioside A (99%+, purified from plant extract, Sweet Aloha Farms,LLC) (1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 30 ppm) in 7% sucrose samples wereevaluated for the qualities of the sweetness of the samples (time ofonset, localization, duration). The sensory evaluations were conductedas follows. All samples were presented at ambient temperature in 15 mlaliquots and presented blindly to sweet sensitive subjects of varyingsweet sensitivity. Subjects tasted the samples and were asked toevaluate the quality of the sweetness. Sucrose solutions (2% and 7%)were presented as references to evaluate the sweetness of therebaudioside A samples.

Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity Rebaudioside A [ppm](strength, onset, localisation, duration) 0 in 2% sucrose immediateonset, full mouth sweet, non-lingering (reference) 0 in 7% sucroseimmediate onset, full mouth sweet, non-lingering (reference) 1 in 7%sucrose immediate onset, full mouth sweet, non-lingering 10 in 7%sucrose immediate onset, full mouth sweet, non-lingering 20 in 7%sucrose immediate onset, full mouth sweet, non-lingering 30 in 7%sucrose immediate onset, sweetness localized to the periphery of thetongue, slightly lingering

The 1 ppm, 10 ppm and 20 ppm rebaudioside A samples and the 7% sucrosereference had a pleasantly strong sweet taste. In each case, thesweetness was perceived all over the oral cavity with an immediateonset. The 30 ppm rebaudioside A sample showed a sweetness localized tothe periphery of the tongue instead of the entire oral cavity asobserved for the 7% sucrose reference and rebaudioside A samplescontaining 1 ppm, 10 ppm or 20 ppm rebaudioside A. The 30 ppmrebaudioside A sample was described by panelists to have a lingeringsweet aftertaste (compare example 8 C) that was not perceived at 20 ppmrebaudioside A or lower concentrations.

Example 8E Ranking Test of 20 ppm Rebaudioside A in 7% Sucrose,Determining the Sucrose Isointensity

A 20 ppm rebaudioside A (99%+, purified from plant extract, Sweet AlohaFarms, LLC) in 7% sucrose sample was evaluated for its isointensity tosucrose solutions in a concentration of 7-11% using the ranking methoddescribed in example 3. The results are indicated in the table below.

sucrose solution Rebaudioside A R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] samplesweetness [%] [%] p-value 7% sweeter 91% 64.61 P < 0.05 8% sweeter 72%64.61 P < 0.05 9% less sweet 7% 35.39 P < 0.05 10% less sweet 0% 35.39 P< 0.05 11% less sweet 0% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index from 72% to 91%, which is greater than the higher criticalvalue (64.61%), means that the rebaudioside A sample was significantlysweeter than the sucrose sample at 7% and 8%. An R-index from 0% to 7%,which is below the critical value (35.39%), means that the rebaudiosideA sample was less sweet than 9%, 10% or 11% sucrose.

The data shows that the perceived sweetness of 7% sucrose with 20 ppmrebaudioside A was significantly higher than the sweetness of 8% sucrosebut below the sweetness of 9% sucrose, 8.5% by interpolation.

As a control, 20 ppm rebaudioside A in water had an isointensity ofabove 0.5% but below 1% sucrose (0.75% by interpolation, compare example12D). Accordingly, the 7% sucrose+20 ppm rebaudioside A (isosweet tobelow 1% sucrose and above 0.5% sucrose, interpolated to 0.75% sucrose),would be expected to be isosweet to below 8% sucrose, or 7.75% sucroseby interpolation. However, the determined isointensity was above 8%sucrose, interpolated to 8.5% sucrose, clearly above the expectedeffect.

Example 9A-9D Stevioside Example 9A Stevioside Comparative SensoryEvaluation of Stevioside (20-60 ppm) in 2% Sucrose

Stevioside extract (95%+, purified from plant extract, Apin Chemicals)(20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm, 50 ppm, 60 ppm) in 2% sucrose samples wereevaluated as described in example 1. The results are indicated in thetable below.

Stevioside [ppm] Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity 0 in water(negative control) no sweetness 0 in 2% sucrose (positive mild sweettaste control) 20 in 2% sucrose notably sweeter than sucrose control 30in 2% sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 40 in 2% sucrose muchsweeter than sucrose control 50 in 2% sucrose much sweeter than sucrosecontrol 60 in 2% sucrose substantially sweeter than sucrose control 20in water barely detectable sweetness 30 in water very weak, lateonsetting sweetness 40 in water weak late onsetting sweetness 50 inwater weak sweetness, faster onset than 40 ppm, lingering sweetness 60in water weak sweetness, faster onset than 50 ppm, lingering sweetness

The 20 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose was perceived as notably sweeterthan the sucrose control by panelists. The 20 ppm stevioside in waterwas barely detectable as sweet

The 30 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose was perceived as much sweeter thanthe 2% sucrose control by panelists. The 30 ppm stevioside in water wasperceived as very weakly sweet with a late onset.

The 40 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose was perceived as much sweeter thanthe sucrose control by panelists. The 40 ppm stevioside in water wasperceived as weakly sweet with a late onset.

The 50 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose was perceived as much sweeter thanthe sucrose control by panelists. The 50 ppm stevioside in water wasperceived as weakly sweet with a faster onset and lingering sweet taste.

The 60 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose was perceived as substantiallysweeter than the sucrose control by panelists. The 60 ppm steviosideextract in water was perceived as weakly sweet with a faster onset andlingering sweet taste.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 2% sucrose by stevioside when used in concentrations near thesweetness detection threshold level from 20 to 60 ppm. The steviosideextract in water samples that were tested in the same concentration incomparison demonstrate that the detected enhancement effect is not dueto the sweetness of the stevioside extract as such.

Example 9B Stevioside Comparative Sensory Evaluation of Stevioside(20-60 ppm) in 7% Sucrose

Stevioside extract (95%+, purified from plant extract, Apin Chemicals)(20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm, 50 ppm, 60 ppm) was evaluated in 7% sucrose asdescribed in example 1. The results are indicated in the table below.

Stevioside [ppm] Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity 0 in water nosweetness (negative control) 0 in 2% sucrose (positive mild sweet tastecontrol) 0 in 7% sucrose (positive strong sweet taste control) 20 in 7%sucrose notably sweeter than sucrose control 30 in 7% sucrose notablysweeter than sucrose control 40 in 7% sucrose much sweeter than sucrosecontrol 50 in 7% sucrose much sweeter than sucrose control 60 in 7%sucrose substantially sweeter than sucrose control 20 in water barelydetectable sweetness 30 in water very weak, late onsetting sweetness 40in water weak sweetness, late onsetting sweetness 50 in water weaksweetness, faster onset than 40 ppm-, lingering sweet taste 60 in waterweak sweetness, faster onset than 50 ppm, lingering sweet taste

The 20 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrose was perceived as notably sweeterthan the sucrose control by panelists. The 20 ppm stevioside in waterwas barely detectable as sweet.

The 30 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrose was perceived as notably sweeterthan the sucrose control by panelists. The 30 ppm stevioside in waterwas perceived as very weakly sweet with a late onset.

The 40 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrose was perceived as much sweeter thanthe sucrose control by panelists. The 40 ppm stevioside in water wasperceived as weakly sweet with a late onset.

The 50 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrose was perceived as much sweeter thanthe sucrose control by panelists. The 50 ppm stevioside in water wasperceived as weakly sweet with a faster onset and lingering sweet taste.

The 60 ppm stevioside extract in 7% sucrose was perceived assubstantially sweeter than the sucrose control by panelists. The 60 ppmstevioside extract in water was perceived as weakly sweet with a fasteronset and lingering sweet taste.

The results above demonstrate the enhancement in the sweetness intensityof 7% sucrose by stevioside when used in concentrations near sweetnessdetection threshold (20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm, 50 ppm, 60 ppm). Thestevioside extract in water samples that were tested in the sameconcentration in comparison demonstrate that the detected enhancementeffect was not due to the sweetness of the stevioside extract as such.

Example 9C Stevioside Sweetness Quality Evaluation of Stevioside (20-50ppm) in 2% Sucrose

Stevioside extract (95%+, purified from plant extract, Apin Chemicals)(20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm, 50 ppm) was evaluated in 2% sucrose for thequalities of the sweetness of the samples (time of onset, localisation,duration). The sensory evaluations were conducted as follows. Allsamples were presented at ambient temperature in 15 ml aliquots andpresented blindly to sweet sensitive subjects of varying sweetsensitivity. Subjects tasted the samples and were asked to evaluate thesweetness qualities. Sucrose solutions (2% and 7%) were presented asreferences.

Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity Stevioside [ppm] (onset,localisation, duration) 0 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, full mouthsweet, not lingering (reference) 0 in 7% sucrose immediate onset, fullmouth sweet, not lingering (reference) 20 in 2% sucrose immediate onset,full mouth sweet, not lingering 30 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, fullmouth sweet, not lingering 40 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, full mouthsweet, not lingering 50 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, sweetnesslocalized to the periphery of the tongue, slightly lingering

All stevioside samples had a pleasantly sweet taste. For each sample,the sweetness was perceived all over the oral cavity (“full mouthsweet”) with an immediate onset.

The 50 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose was found to have a sweetnesslocalized to the periphery of the tongue instead of the entire oralcavity.

The 20 ppm, 30 ppm or 40 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose samples and 2% and7% sucrose were observed to have a full mouth sweetness perception thatis spread over the whole of the oral cavity.

The 50 ppm stevioside in 2% sucrose sample was described to have alingering sweet taste (compare example 8C for details on lingeringtaste) that was not perceived in the 40 ppm stevioside sample or thestevioside samples with an even lower stevioside concentration

Example 9D Stevioside Sweetness Quality Evaluation of Stevioside (20-50ppm) in 7% Sucrose

Stevioside (20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm, 50 ppm) was evaluated in 7% sucrosefor the qualities of the sweetness of the samples (time of onset,localisation, duration). The sensory evaluations were conducted asfollows. All samples were presented at ambient temperature in 15 mlaliquots and presented blindly to sweet sensitive subjects of varyingsweet sensitivity. Subjects tasted the samples and were asked toevaluate the sweetness qualities. Sucrose solutions (2% and 7%) werepresented as references to evaluate the sweetness of the steviosidesamples.

Stevioside Sensory evaluation of sweetness intensity [ppm] (onset,localisation, duration) 0 in 2% sucrose immediate onset, full mouthsweet, not lingering (reference) 0 in 7% sucrose immediate onset, fullmouth sweet, not lingering (reference) 20 in 7% sucrose immediate onset,full mouth sweet, not lingering 30 in 7% sucrose immediate onset, fullmouth sweet, not lingering 40 in 7% sucrose immediate onset, full mouthsweet, not lingering 50 in 7% sucrose immediate onset, sweetnesslocalized to the periphery of the tongue, slightly lingering

The 20 ppm, 30 ppm and 40 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrose samples all had apleasantly strong sweet taste. In the 20-40 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrosesamples, the sweetness was perceived all over the oral cavity with animmediate onset.

The 50 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrose sample had a sweetness localized tothe periphery of the tongue instead of the entire oral cavity asobserved for the sucrose references, and the 20 ppm, 30 ppm and 40 ppmstevioside samples. The 50 ppm stevioside in 7% sucrose sample wasdescribed to have a lingering sweet taste (compare example 8C fordetails on lingering taste) that was not perceived at 40 ppm steviosideor lower concentrations of stevioside.

Examples 10 and 11 Mixtures Sweetness Enhancers Examples 10A-10C Example10A Ranking Test of 45 ppm NarDHC+60 ppm Swingle Extract in 7% Sucrose,Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A 45 ppm NarDHC+60 ppm swingle extract in 7% sucrose sample wasevaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentration of7-11% using the ranking method described in example 3. The results areindicated in the table below.

sucrose solution sample sweetness R-index Critical value [% wt/wt](NarDHC + swingle) [%] [%] p-value 7% sweeter 100% 64.61 P < 0.05 8%sweeter 86% 64.61 P < 0.05 9% sweeter 67% 64.61 P < 0.05 10% less sweet18% 35.39 P < 0.05 11% less sweet 7% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index from 67-100%, which was greater than the critical value(64.61%), means that the NarDHC+swingle sample is significantly sweeterthan the sucrose sample at 7%, 8% or 9%. An R-index from 7-18%, whichwas below the critical value (35.39%), means that the NarDHC+swinglesample is less sweet than either 10% or 11% sucrose. The NarDHC+swinglesample in 7% sucrose was found to be sweeter than 9% and less sweet than10%, and accordingly isosweet to 9.5% sucrose by interpolation.

As a control, the sweetness of 45 ppm NarDHC in water was isosweet to0.5% sucrose (compare control example 12A).

The 60 ppm swingle in water had an isointensity of above 0.5% but below1% sucrose (0.75% by interpolation according to example 12C).

Accordingly, the 7% sucrose+45 ppm NarDHC (isotense to 0.5% sucrose)+60ppm swingle extract (isosweet to below 1% sucrose, interpolated to 0.75%sucrose), would be expected to be isosweet to below 8.5% sucrose, orbelow 8.25% sucrose by interpolation, assuming an additive effect.

However, the determined isointensity was above 9% sucrose, interpolatedto 9.5% sucrose, clearly above a merely additive effect.

Example 10B Ranking Test of 60 ppm NarDHC+60 ppm Swingle Extract in 7%Sucrose, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A 60 ppm NarDHC+60 ppm swingle extract in 7% sucrose sample wasevaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentration of7-11% using the ranking method described in example 3. The results areindicated in the table below.

sucrose solution sample sweetness R-index Critical value [% wt/wt](NarDHC + swingle) [%] [%] p-value 7% sweeter 98% 64.61 P < 0.05 8%sweeter 92% 64.61 P < 0.05 9% sweeter 82% 64.61 P < 0.05 10% isosweet61% 64.61 P < 0.05 11% less sweet 23% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index from 82-98%, which is greater than the critical value(64.61%), means that the NarDHC+swingle sample was significantly sweeterthan the sucrose sample at 7%, 8% or 9%. An R-index from 61%, which isnot significantly different from chance, means that the NarDHC+swinglesample was isosweet to 10% sucrose. An R-index of 23%, which is belowthe critical value (35.39%), means that the NarDHC+swingle sample wassignificantly less sweet than 11% sucrose.

As a control, 60 ppm NarDHC in water had a sweetness isointensity tosucrose of above 1% sucrose and below 1.5% sucrose (interpolated to1.25% as shown in example 12A).

The 60 ppm swingle in water had a sweetness isointentsity to sucrose ofabove 0.5% but below 1% sucrose (0.75% by interpolation as shown in thecontrol according to example 12C).

Accordingly, the 7% sucrose+60 ppm NarDHC (isotense to below 1.5%sucrose, interpolated to 1.25% sucrose)+60 ppm swingle extract (isosweetto below 1% sucrose, interpolated to 0.75% sucrose), would be expectedto be isosweet to below 9.5% sucrose, or below 9% sucrose byinterpolation, assuming an additive effect.

However, the determined isointensity was 10% sucrose, clearly above amerely additive effect.

Example 10C Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract and 2 ppm NDHC+in 7%Sucrose, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A 60 ppm swingle extract+2 ppm NDHC in 7% sucrose sample was evaluatedfor isointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentration of 7-11% usingthe ranking method described in example 3. The results are indicated inthe table below.

Sucrose solutions sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] sweetness [%][%] p-value 7% Sweeter 98% 72.18 P < 0.001 8% sweeter 82% 72.18 P <0.001 9% isosweet 43% 37.26 P < 0.05 10% less sweet 12% 27.82 P < 0.00111% less sweet 4% 27.82 p < 0.001

An R-index from 82-98%, which is greater than the critical value(72.18%), means that the NDHC+swingle sample was significantly sweeterthan the sucrose sample at 7% or 8%. An R-index 43%, which is notsignificantly different from chance, means that the NDHC+swingle samplewas isosweet to 9% sucrose. An R-index of 4-12%, which is below thecritical value (27.82%), means that the NDHC+swingle sample wassignificantly less sweet than 10% or 11% sucrose.

The 2 ppm NDHC in water has a sweetness isointensity to 0.5% sucrose(see example 12F).

The 60 ppm swingle in water has a sweetness isointensity of above 0.5%but below 1% sucrose (0.75% by interpolation as shown in example 12C).

Accordingly, the 7% sucrose+2 ppm NDHC (isotense to 0.5% sucrose)+60 ppmswingle extract (isosweet to below 1% sucrose, interpolated to 0.75%sucrose), would be expected to be isosweet to below 8.5% sucrose, orbelow 8.25% sucrose by interpolation.

However, the determined isointensity was 9% sucrose, clearly above amerely additive effect.

Examples 11A-H Sweetness Enhancer Mixtures and NDHC Example 11A RankingTest of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC+in 7% Sucrose,Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A sample of 60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in 7%sucrose was evaluated for sweetness isointensity to sucrose solutions ina concentration of 7-11% using the ranking method described in example3. The results are indicated in the table below.

Sucrose solution sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] sweetness [%][%] p-value 7% sweeter 100% 74.89 P < 0.001 8% sweeter 100% 74.89 P <0.001 9% sweeter 90% 74.89 P < 0.001 10% sweeter 79% 74.89 P < 0.001 11%isosweet 48% 74.89 P < 0.001

An R-index from 79-100%, which is greater than the critical value(74.89%), means that the NDHC+swingle+NarDHC sample was significantlysweeter than the sucrose sample at 7%, 8%, 9% and 10%. An R-index from50% to the critical value (74.89%) would mean that theNDHC+swingle+NarDHC sample has an equivalent sweetness to the comparedsucrose sample. At 48%, the NDHC+swingle+NarDHC sample was equivalent to11% sucrose.

The 2 ppm NDHC in water had a sweetness isointensity to 0.5% sucrose(see example 12F).

The 60 ppm NarDHC in water had a sweetness isointensity to above 1%sucrose but below 1.5% sucrose (1.25% by interpolation as shown inexample 12A).

The 60 ppm swingle in water had an isointensity of above 0.5% but below1% sucrose (0.75% by interpolation as shown in example 12C).

Accordingly, the 7% sucrose+2 ppm NDHC (isosweet to 0.5% sucrose)+60 ppmNarDHC (isotense below 1.5% sucrose, interpolated to 1.25% sucrose)+60ppm swingle extract (isosweet to below 1% sucrose, interpolated to 0.75%sucrose), would be expected to be isosweet to below 10% sucrose, orbelow 9.5% sucrose by interpolation, assuming an additive effect.

Furthermore, 2 ppm NDHC+60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC in waterwas determined to be less sweet than 2.25% sucrose thus the isointensityof the mixture in 7% sucrose would be expected to be less than 9.25%sucrose (see example 12G), assuming an additive effect.

However, the determined sweetness isointensity was an isointensity to11% sucrose, which is clearly above a merely additive effect.

Example 11B Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppmNDHC in 6% Sucrose, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A sample of 60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in 6%sucrose sample was evaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in aconcentration of 7-11% using the ranking method described in example 3.The results are indicated in the table below.

Sucrose solutions sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] sweetness [%][%] p-value 7% sweeter 96% 64.61 P < 0.05 8% sweeter 91% 64.61 P < 0.059% sweeter 79% 64.61 P < 0.05 10% isosweet 53% 64.61 P < 0.05 11% lesssweet 30% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index from 79-96%, which is greater than the higher critical value(64.61%), means that the enhancer mixture sample was significantlysweeter than the sucrose sample at 7%, 8% and 9%. An R-index of 53% isnot significantly different from chance indicating the enhancer mixturesample had an equivalent sweetness to the 10% sucrose sample. An R-indexof 30, which is less than the lower critical value (35.39%), means theenhancer mixture sample was significantly less sweet than 11% sucrose.

The 2 ppm NDHC in water had a sweetness isointensity to 0.5% sucrose(see example 12F).

The 60 ppm NarDHC in water had a sweetness isointensity to above 1%sucrose but below 1.5% sucrose (1.25% by interpolation, as shown inexample 12A).

The 60 ppm swingle in water had an isointensity to above 0.5% but below1% sucrose (0.75% by interpolation as shown in example 12C).

Accordingly, the 6% sucrose+2 ppm NDHC (isosweet to 0.5% sucrose)+60 ppmNarDHC (isotense below 1.5% sucrose, interpolated to 1.25% sucrose)+60ppm swingle extract (isosweet to below 1% sucrose, interpolated to 0.75%sucrose), assuming an additive effect, would be expected to be isosweetto below 9% sucrose, or below 8.5% sucrose by interpolation.

Furthermore, the enhancer mixture in water was determined to be lesssweet than 2.25% sucrose thus the expected isointensity of the mixturein 6% sucrose would be expected to be less than 8.25% sucrose (seeexample 12G).

However, the determined isointensity was 10% sucrose, which is clearlyabove a mere additive effect.

Example 11C Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppmNDHC in 7% Sucrose+0.15% Citric Acid, Determining its SucroseIsointensity

A sample of 60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in asolution of 7% sucrose (S)+0.15% citric acid (CA) was evaluated forsweetness isointensity by comparison to sucrose/citric acid solutions1-4 (corresponding to a pH of about 2.7) as indicated in the table belowusing the ranking method described in example 3. The results areindicated in the table below.

citric sample sucrose acid sweetness (S) (CA) in 7% Critical [% [% S andR-index value solutions wt/wt] wt/wt] 0.15% CA [%] [%] p-value 1 7%0.105% sweeter 98% 64.61 P < 0.05 2 8%  0.12% sweeter 81% 64.61 P < 0.053 9% 0.135% sweeter 68% 64.61 P < 0.05 4 10%  0.15% less sweet 33% 35.39P < 0.05

An R-index from 68-100%, which is greater than the critical value(64.61%), means that the sample was significantly sweeter than thesucrose/citric acid solutions 1, 2, and 3.

An R-index of 33%, which is below the critical value (35.39%), meansthat the sample was less sweet than the sucrose/citric acid solution 4with 10% sucrose and 0.15% citric acid.

The determined sweetness isointensity therefore wasove 9% sucrose/0.135%citric acid, or equivalent to 9.5% sucrose/0.1425% citric acid byinterpolation.

As a control, in example 12I, a sample of 60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppmNarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in 0.1425% citric acid/water was determined to beisosweet to 1.5% sucrose/0.1425% CA, reflecting the inherent sweetnessof the sample in presence of a similar citric acid concentration. It isknown that the lowering of the pH of the solution (in presence of acids,here by CA), decreases the sensitivity to sweetness. Therefore at 0.15%CA the isointensityness due to inherent sweetness would be expected tobe even lower.

The determined sweetness isointensity of the sample in 7% sucrose/0.15%CA was equivalent to above 9% sucrose/0.135% citric acid, or equivalentto 9.5% sucrose/0.1425% CA by interpolation, which is clearly above amerely additive effect.

The results show that the sweetness enhancers also work in the presenceof acids at a low pH commonly used in many beverages (usually from pH2.6 to 3).

Example 11D Ranking Test of 45 ppm Swingle Extract+45 ppm NarDHC+1.5 ppmNDHC in 7% Sucrose, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A sample of 45 ppm swingle extract+45 ppm NarDHC+1.5 ppm NDHC in 7%sucrose was evaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in aconcentration of 7-11% using the ranking method described in example 3.The results are indicated in the table below.

sucrose solutions R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] sample sweetness [%][%] p-value 7% sweeter 94% 64.61 P < 0.05 8% sweeter 81% 64.61 P < 0.059% sweeter 68% 64.61 P < 0.05 10% less sweet 19% 35.39 P < 0.05 11% lesssweet 6% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index from 68-94%, which is greater than the higher critical value(64.61%), means that the enhancer mixture sample was significantlysweeter than a sucrose sample at a concentration of 7%, 8% and 9%. AnR-index of 6-19%, which is less than the lower critical value (35.39%),means the enhancer mixture sample was significantly less sweet than 10%and 11% sucrose. The enhancer mixture sample in 7% sucrose wasequivalent in sweetness to above 9% but below 10% sucrose, and to 9.5%sucrose by interpolation. This is a difference of at least +2° Brix(+2.5° Brix by interpolation) to the actual sucrose concentration of 7%.

As an indirect control, a higher concentrated sample (2 ppm NDHC+60 ppmswingle extract+45 ppm NarDHC) was found to be isosweet in sweetness to1.75% sucrose (see example 12H). Accordingly, the less concentratedenhancer mixture that was tested will be isosweet to a concentrationwell below 1.75% sucrose. As the effect was determined to be at least+2° Brix (interpolated to 2.5° Brix), at least an added 0.25° Brix (atleast 0.75° Brix when interpolated) is due to the enhancement of sucroseby the enhancer mixture, which is clearly above a merely additiveeffect.

Example 11E Ranking Test of 1 ppm NDHC+30 ppm Swingle Extract+30 ppmNarDHC in 7% Sucrose, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A 1 ppm NDHC+30 ppm swingle extract+30 ppm NarDHC in 7% sucrose samplewas evaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentrationof 7-11% using the ranking method described in example 3. The resultsare indicated in the table below.

sucrose sample sweetness solution (NDHC + swingle + R-index Criticalvalue [% wt/wt] NarDHC) [%] [%] p-value 7% sweeter 96% 64.84 P < 0.05 8%sweeter 68% 64.84 P < 0.05 9% isosweet 48% 35.16 P < 0.05 10% less sweet20% 35.16 P < 0.05 11% less sweet 4% 35.16 P < 0.05

An R-index from 68-94%, which is greater than the higher critical value(64.84%), means that the enhancer mixture sample was significantlysweeter than the sucrose sample at 7% and 8%. An R-index of 4-20%, whichis less than the lower critical value (35.16%), means the enhancermixture sample was significantly less sweet than 10% and 11% sucrose. AnR-index of 48% is not significantly different than chance (50%). Theenhancer mixture was isosweet to 9% sucrose, i.e. perceived as 2% abovethe actual sucrose concentration.

In the enhancer mixture sample tested (1 ppm NDHC, 30 ppm swingleextract and 30 ppm NarDHC), each ingredient is below its respectivethreshold for sweet taste.

As an indirect control, a higher concentrated sample (2 ppm NDHC+60 ppmSwingle Extract+45 ppm NarDHC) was found to be isosweet with 1.75%sucrose (see example 12H).

Accordingly, the tested sample of lower concentration can be expected tohave an isointensity to sucrose in a concentration well below 1.75%sucrose.

Therefore, there is at least an effect of an added 0.25° Brix sucroseintensity, which is clearly above a merely additive effect

Example 11F Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppmNDHC in 140 ppm Sucralose

A 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in 140 ppm sucralosesample was evaluated in comparison to sucralose solutions in aconcentration of 140-220 ppm using the ranking method described inexample 3. The results are indicated in the table below.

sucralose solutions sample R-index Critical value [ppm] sweetness [%][%] p-value 140 sweeter 100% 64.61 P < 0.05 160 sweeter 100% 64.61 P <0.05 180 sweeter 98% 64.61 P < 0.05 200 sweeter 99% 64.61 P < 0.05 220sweeter 97% 64.61 P < 0.05

An R-index from 97-100%, which is greater than the higher critical value(64.61%), means that the enhancer mixture sample was significantlysweeter than the sucralose samples at 140, 160, 180, 200 and 220 ppm.

The results show that the sample exceeded the sweetness of 220 ppmsucralose solution. Therefore, the sample allows a reduction ofsucralose concentration by at least 36% without a reduction ofsweetness.

Example 11G Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppmNDHC in 367.5 ppm Aspartame

A 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in 367.5 ppm aspartamesample was evaluated in comparison to sucralose solutions in aconcentration of 367.5-577.5 ppm using the ranking method described inexample 3. The results are indicated in the table below.

Aspartame solutions R-index Critical value [ppm] sample sweetness [%][%] p-value 367.5 sweeter 100% 64.61 P < 0.05 420 sweeter 100% 64.61 P <0.05 472.5 sweeter 98% 64.61 P < 0.05 525 sweeter 97% 64.61 P < 0.05577.5 sweeter 95% 64.61 P < 0.05

An R-index from 95-100%, which is greater than the higher critical value(64.61%), means that the enhancer mixture sample was significantlysweeter than the aspartame samples at 367.5, 420, 472.5, 525 and 577.5ppm.

The results show that the sample exceeded the sweetness of 577.5 ppmaspartame.

Therefore, the sample allows a reduction of aspartame concentration byat least 36% without a reduction of sweetness.

Example 11H Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppmNDHC in 560 ppm AceK

A 60 ppm Swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in 560 ppm AceK samplewas evaluated in comparison to AceK solutions in a concentration of560-880 ppm using the ranking method described in example 3. The resultsare indicated in the table below.

AceK solutions R-index Critical value [ppm] sample sweetness [%] [%]p-value 560 sweeter 95% 64.61 P < 0.05 640 sweeter 93% 64.61 P < 0.05720 sweeter 90% 64.61 P < 0.05 800 sweeter 92% 64.61 P < 0.05 880sweeter 87% 64.61 P < 0.05

An R-index from 87-95%, which is greater than the higher critical value(64.61%), means that the enhancer mixture sample was significantlysweeter than the AceK samples at 560, 640, 720, 800 and 880 ppm.

The results show that the sample exceeds the sweetness of 880 ppm AceK.

Therefore, the sample allows a reduction of AceK concentration by atleast 36% without a reduction of sweetness.

Examples 12A-12I Controls Determination of sweetness intensity ofsweetness enhancers in water

To exclude the slightly sweet taste of extracts/compounds as such, or anenhancement effect between different sweetness enhancers rather thansweetness enhancers and sucrose, the following controls were performed.

To determine the sweetness intensity, either a forced choice test asdescribed in example 2 was performed, or the isointensity to sucrose wasdetermined in a ranking test as described in example 3b.

Example 12A Sweetness of NarDHC in Water a. Ranking Test of 45 ppmNarDHC in Water, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A 45 ppm NarDHC in water sample was evaluated for isointensity tosucrose solutions in a concentration of 0.5-1% using the ranking methoddescribed in example 3. The results are indicated in the table below.

sucrose solution sample sweetness R-index Critical value [% wt/wt](NarDHC, 45 ppm) [%] [%] p-value 0.5% Isosweet 56% 64.61 P < 0.05   1%less sweet 14% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index 56%, which is below the critical value (64.61), means thatthe NarDHC sample is isosweet to 0.5%. An R-index of 14%, which is belowthe critical value (35.39%), means the NarDHC sample was significantlyless sweet than 1% sucrose.

b. Ranking Test of 60 ppm NarDHC in Water, Determining its SucroseIsointensity

A 60 ppm NarDHC in water sample was evaluated for isointensity tosucrose solutions in a concentration of 0.5-1.5% using the rankingmethod described in example 3. The results are indicated in the tablebelow.

sucrose solutions sample sweetness R-index Critical value [% wt/wt](NarDHC, 60 ppm) [%] [%] p-value 0.5% sweeter 99% 64.61 P < 0.05   1%sweeter 71% 64.61 P < 0.05 1.5% less sweet 20% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index 99% and 71%, which is above the critical value (64.61), meansthat the NarDHC sample was more sweet than 0.5% or 1% sucrose. AnR-index of 20%, which is below the critical value (35.39%), means theNarDHC sample was significantly less sweet than 1.5% sucrose

By interpolation, the sweetness of 60 ppm NarDHC was equivalent to about1.25% sucrose.

c. Paired Comparison of 45 PPM, 50 ppm, 55 ppm and 60 ppm NarDHC inWater Versus 0%, 0.5%, 1% or 1.5% Sucrose

A NarDHC (45 ppm, 50 ppm, 55 ppm, 60 ppm) in water sample was evaluatedfor isointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentration of 0-1.5% usinga modified version of paired comparison method described in example 4.The NarDHC sample was compared to either 0%, 0.5%, 1% or 1.5% sucrose.The results are indicated in the table below.

NarDHC [ppm] Result of comparison Sucrose [% wt/wt] 45 weakly sweeter 045 isosweet 0.5 45 less sweet 1 50 notably sweeter 0.5 50 less sweet 155 notably sweeter 0.5 55 isosweet 1 60 notably sweeter 1 60significantly less sweet 1.5

The 45 ppm solution of NarDHC was weakly sweeter when compared to the 0%sucrose and isosweet to the sweetness of 0.5% sucrose. The 50 ppm NarDHCsample was notably sweeter than 0.5% sucrose but was found to be lesssweet than 1% sucrose. The 55 ppm NarDHC sample was notably sweeter than0.5% sucrose and determined to be isosweet to the sweetness of 1%sucrose. The 60 ppm NarDHC sample was notably sweeter than 1% sucrosebut significantly less sweet than 1.5% sucrose.

Example 12B Sweetness of Rubus Extract in Water Forced Choice Test of 60ppm 70% Rubus Extract in Water Versus 1% and 0% Sucrose

A forced choice sensory evaluation of rubusoside as a sweetener wasperformed as described in example 2 subject to the followingmodifications: 60 ppm rubus extract, comprising 70% rubusoside byweight, in water was compared to either 0% sucrose/water(comparison+rating 1) or 1% sucrose (comparison+rating 2).

The 60 ppm rubus extract was close to the threshold concentration forits sweet perception and significantly less sweet than the weakly sweet1% sucrose, as shown by the results indicated in the tables below.

Number Number panelists panelists Significance choosing rubus choosing0% level Sucrose extract in water as or 1% sucrose (forced comparison[c] sweeter as sweeter choice) 1 0% 30/30  0/30 p < 0.001 2 1%  2/3028/30 p < 0.001

rating rubus extract rating 0% rating 1% Significance level Rating inwater sucrose sucrose (ratings) 1 0.4 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.02 p < 0.001 2 0.56± 0.07 0.81 ± 0.08 p < 0.001

The 60 ppm rubus extract sample in water was perceived as sweeter than0% sucrose/water by all panelists (30 of 30 panelists, with astatistical significance level for the forced choice of p<0.001). Thelow sweetness intensity rating of 0.4 reflects the very weak perceivablesweetness (compare the 0% sucrose negative control with a rating of 0.1.The highest imaginable sweetness rates as 10).

The vast majority of panelists (28 of 30) selected the weakly sweet 1%sucrose solution as being sweeter than the rubus extract solution with astatistical significance level for the forced choice of p<0.001.

The low sweetness intensity rating of 0.56 for rubus extract in waterversus 0.81 for 1% sucrose reflects the very weak perceivable sweetnessof 60 ppm rubus extract which was significantly less than the sweetnessof 1% sucrose.

Example 12C Sweetness of Swingle extract in water Forced Choice Test of60 ppm Swingle Extract in Water Versus 0%, 0.5% and 1% Sucrose

A forced choice sensory evaluation of swingle extract as a sweetener wasperformed as described in example 2, subject to the followingmodifications: Swingle extract had a concentration of 60 ppm in waterand was compared to either 0% sucrose/water or 1% sucrose. The resultsare indicated in the tables below.

Number panelists choosing Significance Number panelists 0% or 1% levelSucrose choosing swingle in sucrose as (forced comparison [% wt/wt]water as sweeter sweeter choice) 1 0 30/30 0/30 p < 0.001 2 0.5 28/30 2/30 p < 0.001 3 1  6/30 24/30 p < 0.001

swingle Rating in water 0% sucrose 1% sucrose Significance level 1 0.63± 0.09 0.1 ± 0.04 p < 0.001 2 0.58 ± 0.06 0.72 ± 0.06 p < 0.001

The 60 ppm swingle extract was close to the threshold concentration forits sweet perception and significantly less sweet than the weakly sweet1% sucrose.

The 60 ppm swingle sample in water was perceived as sweeter than 0%sucrose/water by all panelists (30 of 30 panelists, with a statisticalsignificance level for the forced choice of p<0.001). The low sweetnessintensity rating of 0.63 reflects the very weak perceivable sweetness(compare the 0% sucrose with a rating of 0.1. The highest imaginablesweetness rates as 10).

The 60 ppm swingle sample in water was perceived as sweeter than 0.5%sucrose/water by a vast majority of the panelists (28 of 30 panelists,with a statistical significance level for the forced choice of p<0.001).

The large majority of panelists (24 of 30) selected the weakly sweet 1%sucrose solution as being sweeter than the 60 ppm swingle extractsolution with a statistical significance level for the forced choice ofp<0.001.

The low sweetness intensity rating of 0.58 for swingle extract in waterversus 0.72 for 1% sucrose reflects the very weak perceivable sweetnessof 60 ppm swingle which was significantly less than the sweetness of 1%sucrose.

By interpolation, the sweetness of 60 ppm swingle extract was equivalentto about 0.75% sucrose.

Example 12D Sweetness of Rebaudioside A in Water a. Paired Comparison of1-30 ppm Rebaudioside A Versus 0-1.5% Sucrose

Rebaudioside A (1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 30 ppm) in water samples wasevaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentration of0-1.5% using a modified version of paired comparison method described inexample 4. The rebaudioside A samples were compared to either 0%, 0.5%,1% or 1.5% sucrose. The results are indicated in the table below.

Sucrose Rebausioside A [ppm] Result of comparison [% wt/wt] 1 isosweet 010 weakly sweeter 0 10 notably less sweet 0.5 20 notably sweeter 0.5 20less sweet 1 30 isosweet 1 30 significantly less sweet 1.5

The 1 ppm solution of rebaudioside A had no detectable difference to the0% sucrose control. The 10 ppm rebaudioside A sample was sweeter than 0%sucrose but was found to be only weakly sweeter than 0.5% sucrose, whichis barely detectably sweet. The 20 ppm rebaudioside A sample was notablysweeter than 0.5% sucrose and less sweet than 1% sucrose, which isweakly sweet. Accordingly, the 20 ppm rebaudioside A sample was isosweetto 0.75% sucrose by interpolation. The 30 ppm rebaudioside A sample wasisosweet to 1% sucrose and significantly less sweet than 1.5% sucrose.

b. Ranking Test of 20 ppm Rebaudioside a in Water, Determining itsSucrose Isointensity

A 20 ppm Rebaudioside A in water sample was evaluated for isointensityto sucrose solutions in a concentration of 0.5-1.5% using the rankingmethod described in example 3. The results are indicated in the tablebelow.

sucrose solutions sample sweetness R-index Critical value [% wt/wt](RedA, 20 ppm) [%] [%] p-value 0.5% sweeter 84% 64.61 P < 0.05   1% lesssweet 12% 35.39 P < 0.05 1.5% less sweet 0% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index 84%, which is above the critical value (64.61), means thatthe rebaudioside A sample was more sweet than 0.5% sucrose. An R-indexof 0% or 12%, which is below the critical value (35.39%), means therebaudioside A sample was significantly less sweet than 1% or 1.5%sucrose.

By interpolation, the sweetness of 20 ppm rebaudioside was equivalent toabout 0.75% sucrose.

Example 12E Sweetness of Stevioside in Water Paired Comparison of 20-60ppm Stevioside Versus 0%-1.5% Sucrose

Stevioside (20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm, 50 ppm, 60 ppm) in water sampleswere evaluated for isointensity to sucrose solutions in a concentrationof 0-1.5% using a modified version of paired comparison method describedin example 4. The stevioside samples were compared to either 0%, 0.5%,1% or 1.5% sucrose. The results are indicated in the table below.

Stevioside [ppm] Result of comparison Sucrose [% wt/wt] 20 weaklysweeter 0 20 notably less sweet 0.5 30 weakly sweeter 0 30 isosweet 0.530 significantly less sweet 1 40 notably sweeter 0.5 40 less sweet 1 50sweeter 0.5 50 isosweet 1 50 significantly less sweet 1.5 60 notablysweeter 1 60 less sweet 1.5

The 20 ppm stevioside sample was sweeter than 0% sucrose but less sweetthan 0.5% sucrose, which was barely detectably sweet. The 30 ppmstevioside sample was weakly sweeter than 0% sucrose and determined tobe isosweet to 0.5% sucrose. The 40 ppm stevioside sample was notablysweeter than 0.5% sucrose and less sweet than 1% sucrose. Accordingly,the 40 ppm stevioside sample was isosweet to 0.75% sucrose byinterpolation. The 50 ppm stevioside sample was isosweet to 1% sucroseand significantly less sweet than 1.5% sucrose. The 60 ppm steviosidesample was notably sweeter than 1% sucrose and less sweet than 1.5%sucrose. Accordingly, the 60 ppm stevioside sample was determined to beisosweet to 1.25% sucrose by interpolation.

Example 12F Sweetness of NDHC in Water Ranking Test of 2 ppm NDHC inWater, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A 2 ppm NDHC in water sample was evaluated for its isointensity tosucrose solutions in a concentration of 0.5-1% using the ranking methoddescribed in example 3b. The results are indicated in the table below.

sucrose solutions NDHC sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] sweetness[%] [%] p-value 0.5% isosweet 41% 35.39 P < 0.05   1% less sweet 5%35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index 41%, which is not significantly above the critical value(35.39%), means that the NDHC sample was isosweet to 0.5% sucrose. AnR-index of 5%, which is below the critical value (35.39%), means theNDHC sample was significantly less sweet than 1% sucrose.

Example 12G Sweetness of Sweetness Enhancer Mixtures and NDHC in WaterForced Choice Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC inWater Versus 2.25% Sucrose

A forced choice test of a mixture of swingle extract, NarDHC, and NDHCwas performed as described in example 2 subject to the followingmodifications: A 60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC inwater sample was compared to 2.25% sucrose. The 2.25% sucroseconcentration was selected to be slightly less than the interpolatedadded individual effects of the sweetness isointensities to sucrose ofeach sweetness enhancer:

-   -   0.5% for 2 ppm NDHC (example 12F)+0.75% for 60 ppm swingle        extract (example 12C)+1.25% for 60 ppm NarDHC (control example        12A).

The 2 ppm NDHC+60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC was significantlyless sweet than 2.25% sucrose, as shown in the table below.

This result shows that the mixture of sweetness enhancers in water(without addition of sucrose) was below the summed-up sweetness of eachingredient. Further it is noted that the sweetness enhancers as such donot enhance each other's inherent sweetness to any great extent.

Number of panelists Number of panellists Significance Sucrose choosingsample as choosing 2.25% level [% wt/wt] sweeter sucrose as sweeter(forced choice) 2.25 9/30 21/30 p = 0.023

Example 12H Mixtures—Control Forced Choice Test of 2 ppm NDHC+60 ppmSwingle Extract+45 ppm NarDHC in Water Versus 1.75% Sucrose

A forced choice test of an enhancer mixture sample of NDHC, swingleextract and NarDHC was performed as described in example 2 subject tothe following modifications:

-   -   2 ppm NDHC+60 ppm swingle extract+45 ppm NarDHC in water was        compared to 1.75% sucrose. The 1.75% sucrose concentration was        selected based on adding the sweetness of the individual        ingredients: 0.5% for 2 ppm NDHC (example 12F)+0.75% for 60 ppm        swingle extract (example 12C)+0.5% for 45 ppm NarDHC (example        12A).

The enhancer mixture sample was isosweet to the sweetness of 1.75%sucrose, as shown by the statistically non-significant selection (whichindicates choice purely by chance) of the sucrose solution as beingsweeter in the results indicated in the table below.

Furthermore, this result shows that the sweetness of the combination ofthe enhancer mixture sample was at best additive without the addition ofsucrose to the solution.

Number of panellists Number of panelists choosing 1.75% SignificanceSucrose choosing sample sucrose level [% wt/wt] as sweeter as sweeter(forced choice) 1.75 12/30 18/30 p = 0.008

Example 12I Sweetness of Sweetness Enhancer Mixtures and NDHC inAcid/Water Ranking Test of 60 ppm Swingle Extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppmNDHC in 0.1425% Citric/Water, Determining its Sucrose Isointensity

A sample of 60 ppm swingle extract+60 ppm NarDHC+2 ppm NDHC in 0.1425%citric acid/water and 0% sucrose was evaluated for its isointensity tosucrose solutions in a concentration of 0%, 1.5% and 2.5% eachcontaining citric acid at 0.1425% using the ranking method described inexample 3b. The results are indicated in the table below.

sucrose solutions sample R-index Critical value [% wt/wt] sweetness [%][%] p-value   0% sweeter 97% 64.61 P < 0.05 1.5% isosweet 56% 64.61 P <0.05 2.5% less sweet 7% 35.39 P < 0.05

An R-index 97%, which is significantly above the critical value(64.61%), means that the mixture in 0.1425% citric acid was sweeter than0% sucrose in 0.1425% citric acid. An R-index of 56%, which is notsignificantly different than the critical value (64.61%), means themixture in 0.1425% citric acid was isosweet with 1.5% sucrose in 0.1425%citric acid.

An R-index 7%, far below the critical value (35.39%), means the mixturein 0.1425% citric acid was less sweet than 2.5% sucrose+0.1425% citricacid.

The results show an isointensity in sweetness of the sample comprisingthe sweetness enhancer mixture to 1.5% sucrose at a concentration of0.1425% citric acid, showing its inherent sweetness at that citric acidconcentration and corresponding pH (sweetness intensity is pHdependent).

While the sweet enhancing formulations and sweetened consumables havebeen described above in connection with certain illustrativeembodiments, it is to be understood that other similar embodiments maybe used or modifications and additions may be made to the describedembodiments for performing the same function. Further, all embodimentsdisclosed are not necessarily in the alternative, as various embodimentsmay be combined to provide the desired characteristics. Variations canbe made by one having ordinary skill in the art without departing fromthe spirit and scope of the disclosure. Therefore, the sweetnessenhancing formulations and sweetened consumables should not be limitedto any single embodiment, but rather construed in breadth and scope inaccordance with the recitation of the attached claims.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A sweetened consumable comprising: a) atleast 0.0001% of at least one sweetener combination comprising sucroseand fructose, wherein said sweetener combination is present in aconcentration above the sweetness detection threshold in a concentrationisosweet to 2% to 15% sucrose; and b) a sweetness enhancer comprisingmogroside V and stevioside, wherein the sweetness enhancer is present ina concentration near its sweetness detection threshold, wherein formogroside V this concentration is from 0.4 to 12.5 ppm and wherein forstevioside this concentration is from 2 to 60 ppm; wherein the sweetnessenhancer has a more than additive sweetness enhancing effect that isgreater than the sweet taste due to the sweetness enhancer itself. 2.The sweetened consumable of claim 1, wherein said sweetness enhancerfurther comprises naringin dihydrochalcone.
 3. The sweetened consumableof claim 1, wherein said sweetness enhancer further comprisesneohesperidin dihydrochalcone.
 4. The sweetened consumable of claim 1,wherein said sweetness enhancer further comprises naringindihydrochalcone and neohesperidin dihydrochalcone.
 5. The sweetenedconsumable of claim 1, wherein said sweetened consumable comprises abeverage.
 6. The sweetened consumable of claim 5, wherein said sweetenedconsumable comprises a carbonated beverage.
 7. The sweetened consumableof claim 2, wherein said sweetened consumable comprises a beverage. 8.The sweetened consumable of claim 7, wherein said sweetened consumablecomprises a carbonated beverage.
 9. The sweetened consumable of claim 3,wherein said sweetened consumable comprises a beverage.
 10. Thesweetened consumable of claim 9, wherein said sweetened consumablecomprises a carbonated beverage.
 11. A method of sweetening consumablescomprising: admixing with a consumable a) at least 0.0001% of at leastone sweetener comprising sucrose and fructose; wherein said at least onesweetener or sweetener combination is present in a concentration abovethe sweetness detection threshold in a concentration isosweet to 2% to15% sucrose; and b) a sweetness enhancer comprising mogroside V andstevioside, wherein the sweetness enhancer is present in a concentrationnear its sweetness detection threshold, wherein for mogroside V thisconcentration is from 0.4 to 12.5 ppm and wherein for stevioside thisconcentration is from 2 to 60 ppm; wherein the sweetness enhancer has amore than additive sweetness enhancing effect that is greater than thesweet taste due to the sweetness enhancer itself.
 12. The method ofclaim 11, wherein said sweetness enhancer further comprises naringindihydrochalcone.
 13. The method of claim 11, wherein said furthersweetness enhancer further comprises neohesperidin dihydrochalcone. 14.The method of claim 11, wherein said sweetness enhancer furthercomprises naringin dihydrochalcone and neohesperidin dihydrochalcone.15. The method of claim 11, wherein said sweetened consumable comprisesa beverage.
 16. The method of claim 15, wherein said sweetenedconsumable comprises a carbonated beverage.
 17. The method of claim 12,wherein said sweetened consumable comprises a beverage.
 18. The methodof claim 17, wherein said sweetened consumable comprises a carbonatedbeverage.
 19. The method of claim 13, wherein said sweetened consumablecomprises a beverage.
 20. The method of claim 19, wherein said sweetenedconsumable comprises a carbonated beverage.